1 Why top-down language policy maters Wendy Ayres-Bennet and Charles Forsdick Abstract This paper argues that top-down language policy maters and that policymaking would benefit from (i) a longer historical purview of what has and has not worked, and (ii) more holis�c, cross-government approaches. Drawing on examples from the past two decades from across the UK, this paper starts by demonstra�ng the impact of top-down educa�onal policy about languages, notably on uptake. It contrasts the nega�ve impact of the 2004 removal of the statutory requirement for languages at KS4 in England and that of compulsory languages at primary level in Northern Ireland with the success of the Mandarin Excellence Programme. It then reviews more mixed outcomes, including compulsory language learning at KS2 in 2014, the EBacc’s development in England, implementa�on of the 1+2 approach in Scotland, and atempts to increase the number of Welsh speakers in Wales. In the second part, we argue that language educa�on policy in the Department for Educa�on would benefit from greater acknowledgment across government of the broader impact of languages, as ongoing work with the Home Office and the Department for Health and Social Care illustrates. We conclude with the recent case made by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for more Bri�sh speakers of Mandarin. Introduc�on The language policy literature has tradi�onally made a dis�nc�on between ‘top-down’ policy, that is, policy created and implemented by central government or other authorita�ve bodies, and ‘botom-up’ policy, which starts from the needs of individuals and communi�es. Schiffman (2006, 112), for instance, dis�nguishes explicit, writen, overt, official, and top- down decision-making about language from implicit, unwriten, covert, de facto, grassroots, and unofficial ideas and assump�ons. In the field of educa�on in England, this might represent the difference between policies created and directed by the Department for Educa�on and then implemented in schools, on the one hand, and policies which are 2 developed at the local level by teachers, headteachers, students, and other language professionals, on the other. In recent years, there has been much cri�cism of top-down policy-making, viewing it as crea�ng uniform, one-size-fits-all type policies, the goals of which can be unrealis�c or unachievable (Shohamy 2025; see also Rampton et al. in this Special Collec�on). In this approach, language teachers, it is claimed, ‘become servants of the system with responsibility but without the authority to make meaningful decisions’ (Shohamy 2025, 456). In a very different context, the French colonial situa�on, Spolsky (2018, 300) asserts that the central policy aiming at the hegemony of the imperial language was blocked in most cases by social, poli�cal, and economic factors. He therefore concludes that ‘language planning is not much more effec�ve than the economic planning it was one assumed to be modeled on’ (Spolsky 2018, 300). Whilst many of the cri�cisms of top-down policy are valid, there is nevertheless a place for both top-down and botom-up policy making for languages educa�on, crea�ng an ecosystem where different agents are involved and are constantly in dialogue. It is interes�ng to note that for the current Curriculum Review Cycle in Scotland a whole series of mee�ngs with teachers and other stakeholders are taking place throughout the process to ensure the voice of teachers is heard and that implementa�on is facilitated at a later stage. The decision to adopt this transparent and inclusive approach was taken because Educa�on Scotland became aware that there was not sufficient buy-in from schools for certain aspects of the 1+2 languages policy, discussed below, for which only a very limited closed circle of people had been consulted. The aim of this paper is to show how top-down policy for languages does mater, and that policymaking would benefit from (i) a longer historical purview of what has and has not worked, to ensure that lessons are learnt from past successes and failures, and (ii) a more 3 holis�c, cross-departmental / cross-sectoral approach. Drawing primarily on examples from the past two decades and from across the four na�ons of the United Kingdom, we will start by demonstra�ng the impact that top-down educa�onal policy about languages has had on uptake, mo�va�on and proficiency of language learning, contras�ng some examples where top-down policy has had a nega�ve effect with examples of more posi�ve outcomes. Referencing the policy cycle model, we will then explore cases where the outcomes have been more mixed and consider the reasons for this. In the second half of the paper, we will argue that the effec�veness of language policies depends at least in part on acknowledgement of the value of languages across a broader range of government departments, which in turn are likely to champion the need for investment in languages educa�on in the four jurisdic�ons of the UK. We will close with a recent example of how this cross-government support for languages has helped maintain and reinforce language educa�on policies, and how pilot projects led by the Cross-Government Languages Group are offering promising examples for the future. Nega�ve and posi�ve outcomes of top-down policy It is clear that the outcomes of top-down policy making in the area of language learning, as with interven�ons in other fields, emerge along a spectrum in terms of the rela�ve success of their outcomes, with the majority of these – as demonstrated in the next sec�on – proving more mixed. A striking example of a nega�ve impact is the removal in 2004 of the statutory requirement for languages at Key Stage 4 (KS4) in England (that is broadly for students aged 14-16). The then Labour government’s 2002 Green Paper ‘14–19: Extending Opportuni�es, Raising Standards’ made proposals for radical changes in the curriculum, including a broadening of subject choice and the development of a range of new voca�onal qualifica�ons. Languages, no longer seen as a core subject, became a casualty of the 4 implementa�on of this policy. As Hagger-Vaughan (2016) makes clear, in this policy decision, the subject suffered not only from being ‘caught in the academic/voca�onal debate’ (ibid.: 361), with a percep�on of its value tending more towards the former than the later (countering the assump�ons of the Na�onal Curriculum introduced in 1988), but also from the percep�on of languages ‘as a “difficult” and “challenging” subject’ (ibid.: 362). The policy decision contradicted not only the recommenda�ons of the Nuffield Review (Nuffield Founda�on 2000), a forward-looking document – not least in its acknowledgement of the domes�c importance of languages in a mul�lingual UK – that set the agenda for policy debates in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, but also the Labour government’s own na�onal languages strategy produced in 2002, Languages for All: Languages for Life, which presented linguis�c and intercultural skills as essen�al aspects of ac�ve ci�zenship (Hagger-Vaughan 2016: 363-364). Among those who challenged the policy decision to withdraw languages from a compulsory curriculum at KS4, Pachler (2007) noted that the top-down decision to stop languages being compulsory post-16 was a nega�ve response to the underlying challenges, which should instead have been addressed directly: a shortage of foreign language teachers coupled with a considerable lack of mo�va�on for foreign language learning, in par�cular amongst pupils aged 14–16 as a result, inter alia, of societal and poli�cal insularity as well as a certain disdain for linguis�c ‘otherness’, has led to a knee-jerk reac�on in policy terms, for instance, the breaking with a hard-fought-for policy of ‘languages for all’ at the first opportunity rather than to an examina�on of the underlying causes for the phenomena encountered such as systemic weaknesses with regard to the assessment regime and their impact on how curricular requirements are interpreted or the professional autonomy afforded to teachers. (Pachler 2007: 4) 5 The result of the change in policy was a rapid decline in numbers of entries in languages at GCSE, a trend that con�nues two decades later. Within two years of the withdrawal of the requirement to study a language at GCSE, there were reports of ‘free fall’ in numbers of learners at that stage (Smithers and Whi�ord 2006). The annual decline reported in 2006, for instance, saw German GCSE enrolments drop by 14.2% to 90,310 and those in French by 13.2% to 236,189 (the later demonstra�ng a decline of 80,000 in the subject in the two years since the implementa�on of the policy in 2004). The longitudinal trends show a similar ongoing contrac�on, with par�cipa�on across all languages subjects at GCSE declining steadily: 78% in 2001, 68% in 2004, 46% in 2007, 44% in 2008, 40% in 2010 (Lanvers 2011). The inclusion of languages in the EBacc school performance indicator, introduced by the Conserva�ve government in 2010, as well as changing paterns of engagement with individual languages (including increased enrolments in Spanish and so-called ‘other modern languages’), led to a stabiliza�on of the percentage in the low 40%, but engagement with languages at GCSE is once again in overall decline. What is more, this op�onality has had other nega�ve consequences as noted elsewhere in the collec�on (see the ar�cles by Lanvers and Forbes in this Special Collec�on), including the concerning divergence between the numbers of language learners according to rela�ve levels of affluence (Collen and Duff 2025). When the impact of the 2004 policy became clear in the immediate and rapid decline in GCSE entries for languages, Estelle Morris, who had been Secretary of State for Educa�on in 2001-2002, con�nued to defend the decision, on the grounds that compulsion was no way to engage disaffected learners with a subject (Morris 2006). She also stated a belief in the need to begin language learning in primary schools, an�cipa�ng the forthcoming shi� in policy at KS2 (for a discussion of which, in this specific policy context, see Macaron 2008). 6 However, her newspaper ar�cle also demonstrated a fundamental disconnect at the �me of making the original policy decision between, on the one hand, a commitment to the benefits afforded by widespread access to language learning (‘I bemoan our na�onal lethargy and poor performance as linguists’) and, on the other, a refusal to act on this by retaining languages post-14 as a compulsory part of the curriculum (‘15-year-olds studying languages at the expense of something else is something I'm more than happy to leave to schools’) (Morris 2006). Efforts in England to counteract the damaging impact of the 2004 policy decision by building language capability at primary level – not least through the introduc�on of a requirement at KS2 to develop founda�onal skills in listening, speaking, reading, and wri�ng, with an emphasis on prac�cal communica�on and cultural understanding – has had mixed outcomes, as we will set out below. Any new ini�a�ves at primary level proposed as part of the current Curriculum and Assessment Review will necessarily take over a decade before any benefit is seen at GCSE entries, so the need remains for incen�viza�on measures to stem and reverse the decline of uptake at KS4. Ironically, not long a�er the DfE in England had taken the decision to make languages compulsory in the last four years of primary schooling, the administra�on in Northern Ireland (NI) decided to discon�nue compulsory languages at primary level from 2015, a programme that had been running since 2007. The result is that NI now has the shortest compulsory requirement for language learning in Europe, with pupils only required to learn a language between the ages of 11 and 14 (Collen 2019), a situa�on that has generated increasing calls for making language learning mandatory in primary schools. As Jones (2025) notes, while the existence in Northern Ireland of a framework rather than content-based curriculum enhances teacher agency and permits higher levels of cross-curricular learning, the removal of compulsory languages at primary level in the country has had nega�ve 7 impacts, not least in terms of the extent to which languages are valued both within educa�on and in society more widely. A revision of the policy would have implica�ons for social opportuni�es, ensuring that languages are not the preserve, as is also the case elsewhere, of members of more affluent socio-economic groups (Henderson and Carruthers 2022). It would also ensure that language educa�on policy reflected the mul�lingualism of society in Northern Ireland, further enhancing integra�on and ensuring a more joined-up approach to the Irish Medium Educa�on sector (Rogan 2025). These examples of the nega�ve impact of top-down policy ini�a�ves can be contrasted with evidence of more posi�ve outcomes, reflected in the ongoing success of the Mandarin Excellence Programme (MEP) (see also Carruthers in this Special Collec�on). This is an intensive language programme, launched by the Department of Educa�on in 2016, that provides funding and support for those secondary schools in England seeking to offer their pupils Mandarin Chinese. The programme combines more enhanced classroom teaching and self-study with immersive cultural experiences in China, and is an excellent example of the intensive schemes for language learning whose broader development was subsequently proposed in ‘Towards a Na�onal Languages Strategy’ (Bri�sh Academy et al. 2020). Independent evalua�ons in 2022 and 2023, made publicly available (Research Stories 2022; Impact Stories 2024), have reflected not only the significant success achieved in increasing the number of pupils studying Mandarin in state schools, but also the sense of achievement and fun experienced by pupils on the scheme. There is evidence of high retention rates and strong GCSE results, with the programme also contributing to the enhancement of both teacher supply and professional development in a strategically important subject area. The independent evaluation of the first five years of the Programme (2016-2021) noted the emergence of a ‘cohort of pupils in state schools in England on the path to fluency in 8 Mandarin Chinese’ (Nicoletti and Culligan 2021, 4). By the end of 2020/2021, 71 schools were delivering the Programme, of which 40 had used it to introduce the teaching of Mandarin Chinese into their curriculum (increasing by 40% the number of state schools in England offering the language). The evaluation reported that several of these schools were in areas of relative deprivation, providing evidence of the capacity of the Programme, in a context of the narrowing of access to languages, to ‘raise the expectations and widen the horizons of both pupils and parents’ (Research Stories 2022, 4). A follow-up evaluation of the period 2021-2022 reported a 76% completion rate among pupils (2023, 27), suggesting that MEP has a high retention rate among those participating. Students taking the Programme achieved strong GCSE results, consistently outperforming their non-MEP peers in AQA GCSE Mandarin, with high percentages achieving top grades: in 2021, 45% were awarded grade 9 (against 40% nationally), 73% grades 8 or 9, and 97% (against a national average of 91%) grade 5 or above (Research Stories 2022, 18). The Programme – notably through its integrated international opportunities – delivers broader benefits associated with successful language learning, including increased pupil confidence, resilience and self-esteem. MEP is an example of top-down language policy that has delivered growth and also contributed to widening participation in the subject area. Investment has permitted the provision of an intensive curriculum supplemented by learning outside the classroom. Key ingredients to its success include the contribution of programme partners (UCL Institute of Education in partnership with the British Council) and the commitment of leaders in schools involved. More mixed outcomes of top-down policy 9 In this sec�on, we review some cases where the outcomes of top-down policy have been more mixed. In some instances, this is not because of the policy per se, but rather the way in which it has been implemented. For a policy to be successful, aten�on needs to be paid to all phases of the classic policy cycle: consequently, looking at our four examples through the lens of the policy cycle as outlined below can provide useful insights into some of the reasons for rela�ve success or failure. Applying the policy cycle The standard framework of the policy cycle (see, for example, Howlet et al. 2020) has been applied to the case of language policy, for instance in Gazzola et al. (2023), Gazzola et al. (2024). Figure 1: Language policy cycle (following Gazzola 2023, 50) 10 In the first phase, a language issue emerges, for instance, because parents and caregivers think their children should have more opportuni�es to learn languages in school, or a pressure group or ac�vists want beter recogni�on of their minori�zed language. In the second, agenda-se�ng phase, public authori�es begin to consider how to address the issue: Gazzola et al. (2024, 7) note the importance as to how public authori�es ‘recognise, reframe, define, interpret and ar�culate an issue’. Following that comes policy formula�on and adop�on, usually conducted by senior civil servants with input from advisers and academic experts, but ul�mately the decision of the relevant Minister. In the context of the DfE’s current Curriculum and Assessment Review, some of Savski’s (2025, 65) research ques�ons are undoubtedly relevant here, including how a policy was writen and rewriten through its various stages, who the key par�cipants were, and what forces determined the �meline for the process. Stage four is implementa�on and monitoring of the policy, followed by the final stage of evalua�on. Example 1: Primary Languages In June 2012, as part of the Na�onal Curriculum Review in England, the decision was taken to introduce a statutory requirement for all maintained primary schools to teach either a modern or an ancient foreign language at KS2 (ages 7-11), to take effect in September 2014. In September 2013, a document of just over two pages long was published, se�ng out the four overall aims of the Na�onal Curriculum for languages and 12 atainment targets for making ‘substan�al progress in one language’, focussing essen�ally on spoken and writen skills, alongside some explicit gramma�cal knowledge (DfE 2013). The brevity of the programme of study chimed with one of the key principles in the report by the Expert Panel for the then Na�onal Curriculum Review (DfE 2011, 6), that schools should be given greater freedom over the curriculum. A white paper produced by the RiPL Primary Languages 11 research team makes clear (Holmes and Myles 2019) that, four years a�er the introduc�on of the policy, there might have been an expecta�on to see strategic decisions around the choice of language(s) to be taught, the �me alloca�on to be devoted to language teaching, and its core content, but this was not the case (Holmes and Myles 2019, 5). Instead, inspec�on and research evidence pointed to great varia�on in primary language provision. The authors of the report conclude: Evidence from inspec�on findings, research, and teacher tes�mony indicates that policy decisions alone are insufficient to ensure that successful teaching and learning programmes for primary languages are in place. There is a clear need for an implementa�on strategy, informed by current research findings. (Holmes and Miles 2019, 4) A number of issues surrounding implementa�on were iden�fied, including (i) varia�on in �me alloca�on, (ii) disparity in expecta�ons of pupil progress, (iii) insufficient cross-phase planning for progress and transi�on, (iv) variable degrees of teachers’ subject knowledge, (v) insufficient access to Con�nuing Professional Development (CPD), (vi) deficits in the development of subject knowledge in Ini�al Teacher Training (ITT) and CPD (Holmes and Myles 2019, 6-9). Without clear guidance around �me alloca�on, learning outcomes and benchmarks for assessment, and in the face of very restricted provision in ITT course and insufficient access to CPD, the implementa�on of this policy was likely to produce very mixed outcomes, as indeed proved to be the case (Ayres-Bennet and Carruthers 2019). There are clearly lessons to be learned from this example for the current Curriculum and Assessment Review. Example 2: Sco�sh 1+2 policy 12 Scotland provides another notable case where despite, in this case, a policy having a robust framework and being well funded, its implementa�on nevertheless fell short of expecta�ons. In 2013, the Sco�sh Government introduced a new language policy, the 1+2 approach to learning, based on the European Union’s objec�ve that every ci�zen should master two languages beside their mother tongue.1 The aim of this policy – reflec�ng the Council of Europe’s commitment to suppor�ng plurilingualism through educa�on – was to permit the teaching to every child of their own language plus two addi�onal languages (L1 + L2). Of these, in the Sco�sh context, the first (L1) was delivered from Primary 1 (for pupils aged 5), and the second (L2) from Primary 5 (for pupils aged 10) onwards, and with the aim being that of con�nuing the learning of two languages un�l the end of S3 (for pupils aged 14). There was a requirement that L1 has to be a language available at the Na�onal Qualifica�on level, namely French, Spanish, German, Italian, Gaelic (for Learners), Urdu, Mandarin or Cantonese, while L2 could be any language, including Bri�sh Sign Language (BSL), La�n, Scots or other community languages that the school might be able to offer (Sco�sh Government 2022). The inten�on with L3 was that pupils were not taught the same language con�nuously but were given an opportunity to learn about various languages and cultures as part of a broader goal: ‘Today’s children are growing up in a mul�lingual world and the ability to communicate effec�vely in social, academic and commercial se�ngs is crucial if they are to play their full part as global ci�zens’ (Educa�on Scotland 2014). The policy was generously funded, with the Sco�sh Government providing local authori�es with £35.6 million between 2012 and 2023 to enable their primary schools to develop and deliver language learning within the parameters of the policy (Barclay 2025). 1 htps://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/142/language-policy. 13 More than a decade on, Scotland is also undergoing what it calls a Curriculum Improvement Cycle and reviewing why the 1+2 policy has not always delivered to the extent hoped for. The 2023 survey of Sco�sh local authori�es published in August 20242 showed that 68% of primary schools were offering full L2 en�tlement (i.e. L2 taught con�nuously from P1 to P7) and another 31% par�al en�tlement. For L3, while 76% of primary schools were providing an L3 en�tlement, 24% were not. At secondary school, 61% were offering a full en�tlement, while 39% were not (i.e. an L2 was not taught con�nuously from S1 to S3 in over a third of the schools surveyed). Since the L3 en�tlement is less stringent – it is defined as ‘in addi�on to the L2, one or more languages are taught as a planned part of the curriculum at some point during the broad general educa�on’, then here 88% were fulfilling this requirement. Given these figures, it can be seen that there is variable interpreta�on of the language learning requirement, especially in senior schools, with some schools, for instance, allowing students to opt out of language learning at the end of S2. In nearly three quarters of the primary schools surveyed, the class teacher solely provided the language teaching; it is perhaps therefore unsurprising that primary school teachers in Scotland o�en express a lack of confidence in their ability to provide a good model of language to their classes and in their current level of proficiency, especially as regards pronuncia�on and grammar (Valdera Gil and Crichton 2018). Other issues with implementa�on are familiar from the English context including problems of transi�on, insufficient specifica�on and prescrip�on of the content to be taught at primary level, varia�on in the amount of �me allocated for language learning, the need for greater variety of qualifica�ons for instance alongside Na�onal 5 exams, the recruitment and reten�on crisis for language teachers and 2 htps://www.gov.scot/publica�ons/12-languages-policy-findings-2023-survey-local-authori�es/. 14 the priority given to STEM by school senior management teams and parents. Some of these things, at least, might have been foreseen at the policy formula�on phase. Example 3: English Baccalaureate (EBacc) Our next example concerns the introduc�on of the EBacc, a performance measure for schools, first applied in the 2010 school performance tables, to increase take-up of ‘core’ academic subjects. It measures the achievement of pupils who have gained Key Stage 4 (GCSE level) qualifica�ons in English, mathema�cs, history or geography, the sciences, and a language (House of Commons Library 2019). In 2015 it was made a requirement for English schools, and the target set that at least 90% of pupils in mainstream secondary schools should be entered for the EBacc by 2025. In the 2022-2023 school year, only 39.3% of pupils were in fact entered, with the deficit largely atributable to low take-up of languages. The reasons for the mixed success of this policy are mul�ple. Leaving aside the well-known reasons for the low uptake of languages (perceived difficulty, harshness of grading at GCSE and A level, shortage of well-qualified teachers, etc., discussed at length elsewhere in this Special Collec�on), we highlight just one here. In 2023-2024, the last year for which there are data, there were six different performance measures for maintained secondary schools in opera�on, with notably Progress 8/Atainment 8 (implemented in 2016) si�ng alongside EBacc entry and EBacc APS (Average Point Score) (DfE 2025a). Progress 8 aims to measure student progress since leaving primary school against peers with the same prior atainment in English and mathema�cs to show the ‘value added’ by the school (Parish 2024, 725). As Parish notes (2024, 726), since Progress 8 does not priori�ze languages – indeed a language is not a requirement in the way Progress 8 is calculated–, there is a clear tension between EBacc, where languages are highly valued, and Progress 8, where they are apparently depriori�zed. If EBacc subjects ‘are considered essen�al to many degrees and open up lots 15 of doors’ (DfE 2019), was this not taken into account in the agenda-se�ng and policy formula�on phases of the crea�on of Progress 8, and to what extent did it form part of DfE monitoring and evalua�on of the policy? For modern languages, at least, the policies are essen�ally in, what Parish (2024, 726) calls, ‘a game of tug of war’. Example 4: Promo�on of Welsh-language educa�on The monitoring and evalua�on phases of the policy cycle are also key to the success of a policy, as our final example on Welsh educa�on in Wales illustrates. Even the best inten�oned and well thought-out policies can have unfortunate, unintended consequences. The Welsh Government has introduced a series of key language policies – in 2003 (‘Iaith Pawb: A Na�onal Ac�on Plan for a Bilingual Wales’), in 2012 (‘Iaith Fyw: Iaith Byw / A living language: A language for living – A strategy for the Welsh Language 2012-2017’) and most recently in 2017 (‘Cymraeg 2050: A million Welsh speakers’) – that all seek to promote the learning of Welsh and protect the Welsh language. In a recent study of the impact of these policies, Dave Sayers (2025) claims that the focus on a growing number of Welsh speakers has eclipsed broader priori�es regarding social inclusion and wellbeing, and had a detrimental impact on pupils’ engagement with modern languages, despite the Global Futures plan (Welsh Government 2022), whose aim is to promote ‘interna�onal languages’ (i.e. languages other than English and Welsh) in the curriculum, including community languages and BSL. Sayers argues – drawing evidence from Language Trends Wales (Duff, O’Boyle and Collen 2023) – that a priori�za�on of bilingualism has thus far undermined the benefits of mul�lingualism, reflected not least in growing immigra�on (and the broadening of linguis�c diversity this implies). The same survey notes that 60% of Welsh secondary schools report under 10% of students picking an ‘interna�onal language’ GCSE, and over 16 50% of schools record no GCSEs in these subjects. In an atempt to understand these trends, Arfon, Gorrara, Jenkins and Owen (2025) propose a quan�ta�ve analysis of learner perspec�ves on interna�onal languages in secondary schools in Wales. While concluding that perceived difficulty was not a barrier and that pupils were mo�vated primarily by ideas of usefulness and personal enjoyment, the authors also noted a lack of successfully joined- up approaches as ‘learners in Wales do not currently understand English, Interna�onal Languages and Welsh as a “family” of interconnected subjects’ (Arfon, Gorrara, Jenkins and Owen 2025: 33). The repercussions of this lack of interconnectedness at a policy level are central to Sayers’s cri�que. Demonstra�ng the ways in which interven�ons in one language area may have unintended consequences for others, he argues that language policy should be more holis�c. He outlines a ‘doughnut language policy’, which include numbers of speakers (associated with ‘vitality’) but complements this with other factors (including ‘global mul�lingualism’, ‘social cohesion’ and – in a clear echo with the findings of Arfon, Gorrara, Jenkins and Owen – ‘cultural enjoyment’). This sec�on has demonstrated that it would be advantageous, in working through the recommenda�ons of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, for the Department for Educa�on to examine closely the successes and failures of previous policies across the UK and to draw relevant lessons from them. In par�cular, it is essen�al that all phases of the policy cycle are taken into account. In the next sec�on we turn to situa�ng educa�on policy within a more holis�c cross-government approach. Languages across government Despite the economic case for investment in languages educa�on having been made, in that it has been shown that benefit-to-cost ra�os of about 2:1 for promo�ng Arabic, French, 17 Mandarin or Spanish educa�on are es�mated, meaning that spending £1 could return approximately £2 (Ayres-Bennet et al. 2022), investment for languages educa�on always has to compete for investment in the periodic government Spending Reviews. In this sec�on we argue that, since the effec�veness of language policy throughout the policy cycle depends to no small extent on financial investment, it is essen�al that the value of languages is recognized and championed across a range of government departments, so that support for the policymakers and analysts in the Department for Educa�on is reinforced and magnified. At present, this support is at best somewhat uneven and languages are notably absent from a number of recent key policy documents, including the UK’s industrial strategy (UK Government 2025) and the Strategic Defence Review (Ministry of Defence 2025). The Department for Educa�on’s document on the skills required to deliver the government’s five missions (htps://www.gov.uk/missions) makes no men�on of languages, although STEM and higher technical skills are featured (DfE 2025b); yet, languages obviously play into almost all of the missions and government priori�es (Ayres-Bennet and Forsdick 2024). In other words, the role of languages in interna�onal business and trade; social cohesion and integra�on; crime preven�on and detec�on; diplomacy, defence and security; interna�onal development; vic�m and refugee support; equitable access to jus�ce and healthcare, and across a range of other public services is not as yet salient in government policymaking and documenta�on. For this to happen, we argue, educa�on and skills policy needs to be contextualized in broader government thinking and policy. https://www.gov.uk/missions 18 Recent work with the Academic Engagement subgroup of the Cross-Government Languages Group3 provides some models as to how research about the value of languages can be made available to policymakers in different government departments. For instance, Wendy Ayres-Bennet has convened workshops for the Home Office in which academic linguists have given short talks on how languages research impacts key Home Office priori�es including policing, serious and organized crime, child sexual and domes�c abuse, modern slavery and human trafficking. There have also been sessions for Analysts in Government Month, Cons�tu�onal Rela�ons Month and Devolu�on Learning Week, where speakers set out the history and legisla�ve and sociolinguis�c posi�on of the different indigenous languages of the UK, including Bri�sh and Irish sign languages. As part of a cross- government languages ini�a�ve, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is commited to raising awareness, building capacity, and strengthening engagement across its divisions, including through its academic partnerships. DHSC’s Languages Champion Professor Kevin Fenton chaired an academia-policy knowledge exchange workshop in July 2024 on languages and na�onal health priori�es. It aimed to create a space for interdisciplinary researchers with interests in languages to discuss policy-relevant evidence with policy professionals, health experts in NHS England and the UK Health Security Agency, NIHR, AHRC, UPEN and the Bri�sh Academy. The event provided a pla�orm to share and discuss lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and the value of languages-related research for accessible, culturally competent and innova�ve health systems. Brokering 3 According to its terms of reference, this subgroup supports the development and maintenance of ‘intelligent and valued rela�onships’ between government and academia, so that government makes more effec�ve use of languages exper�se, and the languages research community contributes to the crea�on of evidence-based government policies. Membership includes representa�ves from several government departments, academia and UK Research and Innova�on (UKRI). 19 partnerships, clarifying pathways and clearer signpos�ng for languages-relevant research to research funders and government were key outcomes. Concluding thoughts In conclusion, we focus on a striking recent example of links forged between policy rela�ng to language educa�on and skills and broader government priori�es in the case made by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) – in the light of an uncertain and rapidly changing geopoli�cal context – that the UK needs more Bri�sh speakers of Mandarin. This interven�on occurred in the context of debates about con�nued funding for the Mandarin Excellence Programme, the successful top-down policy ini�a�ve discussed above. Providing oral evidence to the Interna�onal Rela�ons and Defence Commitee on 26 March 2025 about the erosion of China-related knowledge and exper�se, Foreign Secretary David Lammy pointed to the strategic value of ‘Mandarin speaking and the capability of the next genera�on of diplomats’, no�ng that the subject was ‘hugely important to invest in at this �me’ as part of a commitment in interna�onal diplomacy to being ‘fit for purpose for today, not for yesterday or decades ago’.4 It was reported subsequently (Merrick 2025) that Lammy had intervened to support the con�nua�on of MEP, then under review by the Department for Educa�on and subsequently renewed – albeit on a reduced basis – for a further year. While the findings of his cross-Whitehall China audit were deemed too sensi�ve for publica�on, Lammy made a statement to the House of Commons on 24 June 2025, outlining in more detail the government’s approach to China. In this, he noted again with concern ‘a 4 htps://commitees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/15818/html/ 20 profound lack of confidence in how to deal with China, and a profound lack of knowledge regarding China’s culture, its history and – most importantly – its language’.5 The recent case of these cross-departmental interven�ons regarding China capability – as well as emerging discussions in the Home Office and the Department for Health and Social Care about language-sensi�ve policymaking in the areas of social cohesion and public health – provide promising examples of how cross-government support for language educa�on policy might work more effec�vely in future. On the one hand, this might entail government departments iden�fying more explicitly and more systema�cally their requirements for language skills and exper�se in order to conduct government business effec�vely, for instance, for defence, diplomacy, and security or for the successful delivery of services to the public (e.g. in healthcare, the criminal jus�ce system, welfare, or work and pensions). In other words, in line with a coherent na�onal strategy, the educa�on system should provide enough linguists of varying degrees of proficiency to meet the internal needs of the public sector. On the other hand, through closer collabora�on with academic researchers, this might involve government departments acquiring an enhanced understanding of the opportunity cost in not valuing languages (whether in interna�onal business and trade, in promo�ng social and community cohesion, or the integra�on of migrants and refugees), and consequently making the case for investment in languages educa�on in order for the UK both to prosper and flourish domes�cally and to be able to meet global challenges. 5 htps://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/china-audit-foreign-secretarys-statement 21 References Arfon, Elin, Gorrara, Claire, Jenkins, Lucy, and Owen, Glesni. 2025. Languages connect us: an inves�ga�on into learner perspec�ves on interna�onal languages in secondary schools in Wales. Wales Journal of Education 27(1): 4–49. Ayres-Bennet, Wendy and Carruthers, Janice. 2019. Policy Briefing on Modern Languages Educational Policy in the UK. Ayres-Bennet, Wendy and Forsdick, Charles. 2024. Languages and the Government’s Missions. htps://university-council-for-languages.org/2025/08/26/languages-and- the-governments-missions/ Ayres-Bennet, Wendy, Hafner, Marco, Dufresne, Eliane and Yerushalmi, Erez. 2022. The Economic Value to the UK of Speaking Other Languages. Santa Monica, CA and Cambridge, UK: RAND Corpora�on. Barclay, Fiona. 2025. What’s the future for languages in Scotland’s schools? University of S�rling Public Policy Blog, htps://policyblog.s�r.ac.uk/2025/03/04/whats-the-future- for-languages-in-scotlands-schools/ Bri�sh Academy, the Arts and Humani�es Research Council, the Associa�on of School and College Leaders, the Bri�sh Council and Universi�es UK. 2020. Towards a National Languages Strategy: Education and Skills. htps://www.thebri�shacademy.ac.uk/documents/2597/Towards-a-na�onal- languages-strategy-July-2020_R0FHmzB.pdf Collen, Ian. 2019. Northern Ireland risks being le� behind because children are not required to learn a second language in primary school. The Conversation. 21 June. https://university-council-for-languages.org/2025/08/26/languages-and-the-governments-missions/ https://university-council-for-languages.org/2025/08/26/languages-and-the-governments-missions/ https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2597/Towards-a-national-languages-strategy-July-2020_R0FHmzB.pdf https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2597/Towards-a-national-languages-strategy-July-2020_R0FHmzB.pdf 22 htps://theconversa�on.com/northern-ireland-risks-being-le�-behind-because- children-are-not-required-to-learn-a-second-language-in-primary-school-119143 Collen, Ian and Duff, Jayne. 2025. Language Trends England 2025. Bri�sh Council. Department for Educa�on (DfE). 2011. The Framework for the National Curriculum. A Report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum Review. htps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7572c5ed915d6faf2b3104/NCR- Expert_Panel_Report.pdf Department for Educa�on (DfE). 2013. Languages Programmes of Study: Key Stage 2. htps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b9246e5274a7318b8f889/PRIMA RY_na�onal_curriculum_-_Languages.pdf Department for Educa�on (DfE). 2019. Guidance English Bacalaureate (EBacc). htps://www.gov.uk/government/publica�ons/english-baccalaureate-ebacc/english- baccalaureate-ebacc Department for Educa�on (DfE). 2024. English Baccalaureate Entry and Achievement. htps://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/educa�on-skills-and-training/11- to-16-years-old/english-baccalaureate-entry-and-achievement/latest/ Department for Educa�on (DfE). 2025a. Secondary Accountability Measures: Guide for Maintained Secondary Schools, Academies and Free Schools. htps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67bde335729cf14d438d76c2/Second ary_accountability_measures_- _guide_for_maintained_secondary_schools__academies_and_free_schools.pdf Department for Educa�on (DfE). 2025b. Skills England: Sector Evidence on the Growth and Skills Offer. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7572c5ed915d6faf2b3104/NCR-Expert_Panel_Report.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7572c5ed915d6faf2b3104/NCR-Expert_Panel_Report.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b9246e5274a7318b8f889/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Languages.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b9246e5274a7318b8f889/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Languages.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-baccalaureate-ebacc/english-baccalaureate-ebacc https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-baccalaureate-ebacc/english-baccalaureate-ebacc https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/english-baccalaureate-entry-and-achievement/latest/ https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/english-baccalaureate-entry-and-achievement/latest/ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67bde335729cf14d438d76c2/Secondary_accountability_measures_-_guide_for_maintained_secondary_schools__academies_and_free_schools.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67bde335729cf14d438d76c2/Secondary_accountability_measures_-_guide_for_maintained_secondary_schools__academies_and_free_schools.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67bde335729cf14d438d76c2/Secondary_accountability_measures_-_guide_for_maintained_secondary_schools__academies_and_free_schools.pdf 23 htps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6863f18b3464d9c0ad609ddf/Skills_E ngland_-_sector_evidence_on_the_growth_and_skills_offer.pdf Duff, Jayne, O’Boyle, Aisling and Collen, Ian. 2023. Language Trends Wales 2023. Bri�sh Council. Educa�on Scotland. 2014. A 1+2 approach to language learning from Primary 1 onwards. htps://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/19187/1/1plus2P1ApproachtoLanguageLearning.pdf Eppler, Eva, Amos, Jenny, and Magne, Viktoria. 2025. CAR and the new dialogues about language educa�on. The Language Learning Journal, Special Collec�on. Gazzola, Michele. 2023. Language policy as public policy. In Epistemological and Theoretical Foundations in Language Policy and Planning, ed. Michele Gazzola, Federico Gobbo, David Cassels Johnson, and Jorge Antonio Leoni de Léon, 41-71. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Gazzola, Michele, Federico Gobbo, David Cassels Johnson, and Jorge Antonio Leoni de Léon. 2023. Epistemological and Theoretical Foundations in Language Policy and Planning. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Gazzola, Michele, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh, eds. 2024. Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning. London and New York: Routledge. Hagger-Vaughan, Lesley. 2016. Towards ‘languages for all’ in England: the state of the debate. Language Learning Journal 44(3): 358-375. htps://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1199047 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6863f18b3464d9c0ad609ddf/Skills_England_-_sector_evidence_on_the_growth_and_skills_offer.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6863f18b3464d9c0ad609ddf/Skills_England_-_sector_evidence_on_the_growth_and_skills_offer.pdf 24 Henderson, Leanne and Carruthers, Janice. 2022. Socio-Economic Factors, School Type and the Uptake of Languages. Northern Ireland in the Wider UK Context. Language Learning Journal 50(6): 712-731. Holmes, Bernardete and Myles, Florence. 2019. White Paper: Primary Languages Policy in England – The Way Forward. htps://www.ripl.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/RIPL-White-Paper-Primary-Languages-Policy-in- England.pdf House of Commons Library. 2019. Research Briefing: English Baccalaureate. htps://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06045/ Howlet, Michael, Ramesh, M., and Perl, Anthony. 2020. Studying Public Policy: Principles and Processes, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Impact Stories. 2024. The Mandarin Excellence Programme Evaluation Report 2022/2023. htps://ci.ioe.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/MEP-Evalua�on-Full-Report-2022- 2023-11102024.pdfJones, Sharon. 2025. Towards Language Educa�on Excellence in Northern Ireland’s Primary Schools. Languages, Society and Policy, htps://www.lspjournal.com/post/towards-language-educa�on-excellence-in- northern-ireland-s-primary-schools Lanvers, Ursula. 2011. Language educa�on policy in England. Is English the elephant in the room? Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies 5 (3): 63-78 Macaro, Ernesto. 2008. The decline in language learning in England: ge�ng the facts right and ge�ng real. The Language Learning Journal, 36(1): 101–108. htps://doi.org/10.1080/09571730801988595 https://www.ripl.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RIPL-White-Paper-Primary-Languages-Policy-in-England.pdf https://www.ripl.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RIPL-White-Paper-Primary-Languages-Policy-in-England.pdf https://www.ripl.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RIPL-White-Paper-Primary-Languages-Policy-in-England.pdf https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06045/ 25 Merrick, Jane. 2025. China threat to UK sees Mandarin lessons in schools spared the axe. The Independent. 23 May. Ministry of Defence. 2025. Strategic Defence Review. Making Britain Safer: Secure at Home, Strong Abroad. htps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/683d89f181deb72cce2680a5/The_Str ategic_Defence_Review_2025_-_Making_Britain_Safer_- _secure_at_home__strong_abroad.pdf Morris, Estelle. 2006. Sorry, Alan, it seems I dropped you in it. The Guardian. 24 October. htps://www.theguardian.com/educa�on/2006/oct/24/schools.news Nuffield Founda�on. 2000. Languages: the next generation The Nuffield Foundation The final report and recommendations of The Nuffield Languages Inquiry. htps://www.nuffieldfounda�on.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/11/languages_finalreport.pdf Pachler, Norbert. 2007. Choices in language educa�on: principles and policies. Cambridge Journal of Education 37(1): 1-15. Parish, Abigail. 2024. Policy tug of war: EBacc, progress 8 and modern foreign languages in England. Journal of Education Policy 39(5): 718-735. Research Stories 2023. The Mandarin Excellence Programme Evalua�on of the first five years. Rogan, Thomas. 2025. Language teachers of Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) in mainstream primary schools – what can they learn from Irish-Medium (IM) prac��oners? Languages, Society and Policy, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/683d89f181deb72cce2680a5/The_Strategic_Defence_Review_2025_-_Making_Britain_Safer_-_secure_at_home__strong_abroad.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/683d89f181deb72cce2680a5/The_Strategic_Defence_Review_2025_-_Making_Britain_Safer_-_secure_at_home__strong_abroad.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/683d89f181deb72cce2680a5/The_Strategic_Defence_Review_2025_-_Making_Britain_Safer_-_secure_at_home__strong_abroad.pdf https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/oct/24/schools.news 26 htps://www.lspjournal.com/post/language-teachers-of-modern-foreign-languages- mfl-in-mainstream-primary-schools-what-can-they-le Savski, Kristof. 2025. Language Policy in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sayers, Dave. 2025. ‘Doughnut Language Policy: How to Promote Welsh without the Unintended Consequences’, Languages, Society and Policy, htps://www.lspjournal.com/post/doughnut-language-policy-how-to-promote-welsh- without-the-unintended-consequences. Schiffman, Harold. 2006. Language policy and linguis�c culture. In An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, ed. Thomas Ricento, 111-125. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Sco�sh Government. 2022. htps://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publica�ons/research- and-analysis/2022/04/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local- authori�es/documents/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local- authori�es/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local- authori�es/govscot%3Adocument/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local- authori�es.pdf Shohamy, Elana. 2025. The poli�cal challenges of language policy: top-down and botom up. The Modern Language Journal 109: 454-458. Smithers, Rebecca and Whi�ord, Ben. 2006. 'Free fall' fears as pupils abandon languages. The Guardian. 25 August. Spolsky, Bernard. 2018. Language policy in French Colonies and a�er independence. Current Issues in Language Planning 19(3): 231– 315. https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2022/04/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/documents/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/govscot%3Adocument/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities.pdf https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2022/04/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/documents/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/govscot%3Adocument/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities.pdf https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2022/04/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/documents/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/govscot%3Adocument/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities.pdf https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2022/04/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/documents/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/govscot%3Adocument/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities.pdf https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2022/04/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/documents/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/govscot%3Adocument/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities.pdf https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2022/04/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/documents/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities/govscot%3Adocument/12-languages-policy-findings-2021-survey-local-authorities.pdf 27 UK Government. 2025. The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy. htps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68595e56db8e139f95652dc6/industri al_strategy_policy_paper.pdf Valdera Gil, Francisco and Crichton, Hazel. 2018. Mother tongue plus two languages: are Sco�sh primary teachers confident to deliver? The Language Learning Journal 48(4): 454–468. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68595e56db8e139f95652dc6/industrial_strategy_policy_paper.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68595e56db8e139f95652dc6/industrial_strategy_policy_paper.pdf