Students from less affluent backgrounds in England are more likely to attend schools where studying a language at GCSE level is optional, according to new research from the University of Cambridge. The study, which examined 615 state schools, found that while students’ socio-economic status does not significantly affect their interest in learning languages, disadvantaged students are concentrated in schools that place less emphasis on language study. This lowers their chances of continuing with a language after age 14.
The research found a seven percentage point difference between the proportion of disadvantaged students at schools where languages are optional and those where they are considered core subjects. Language uptake at these schools varied by more than 50 percentage points.
These results indicate that since the removal of compulsory GCSE languages in 2004, disadvantaged students have been most affected by the decline in language study nationally. In the academic year 2023/24, only 45.7% of eligible students in England took a language GCSE. By comparison, almost all upper secondary students in the European Union—97.9%—study at least one foreign language.
The findings also suggest that offering a wider selection of languages improves overall performance: for every additional language available at GCSE level, average school scores for languages increased by nearly a quarter of a grade.
Dr Karen Forbes, Associate Professor in Second Language Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, led the research published in The Language Learning Journal. Forbes said: “It seems obvious, but surely all children should have the same opportunity to learn a language. In practice, for less wealthy students these subjects are often de-emphasised. If this is not addressed, the national decline in language learning will continue and probably accelerate.”
In England, studying a language is mandatory from ages seven to 14. After that point, schools decide whether to treat languages as core or optional subjects or offer them through an English Baccalaureate (EBacc) pathway—a government measure based on how many pupils take certain GCSEs including languages.
The Cambridge study looked into how different school policies—core subject status, EBacc pathways or full optionality—impact student uptake and achievement at GCSE level. It also considered factors such as prior attainment (measured by Key Stage 2 test scores), numbers of disadvantaged pupils and those who speak English as an additional language (EAL).
Of the surveyed schools, 19.2% treated languages as core subjects; 29.6% offered them via an EBacc pathway; and over half (51.2%) made them fully optional. Most students studied French, Spanish or German for GCSEs but some chose Chinese, Italian, Urdu, Hebrew, Arabic, Japanese or Bengali.
Disadvantaged pupils were more likely to be enrolled at schools with optional language policies: nearly 29% compared with just over 21% at core-language schools and about 25%—matching national averages—in EBacc pathway institutions.
Language policy had significant effects on uptake rates: where languages were core subjects, over four-fifths (82.6%) continued with them at GCSE; this dropped to just under half (52.7%) in EBacc pathway settings and about one-third (31.9%) when entirely optional—a trend seen most frequently among less affluent communities.
Even when controlling for prior attainment and EAL status, school policy remained the strongest predictor of whether students would pursue a language after age 14; disadvantage itself was not significant once opportunities were equalized.
The research also found that higher participation slightly lowered average grades per pupil across all language subjects by about one-fiftieth of a grade per percentage point increase in uptake—but this effect was offset by gains from offering more languages: each additional option improved average grades by almost a quarter point.
Forbes noted that curriculum positioning influences student attitudes: “When schools frame languages as useful and important the students pick up on this,” she said.“Offering a wider range of languages also gives them a choice,and they are more likely to be motivated if they are studying a language they have actively chosen.”
While introduction of the EBacc has not reversed declining trends nationally,it appears to have raised uptake somewhat: there is around a twenty-point difference between EBacc pathway schools and those making languages fully optional.
“Personally,I would love to see languages reestablished as core subjects at GCSE across all schools – this would signal its importance and create more equitable opportunities for students,” Forbes said.“In the absence of that,something is better than nothing,and national-level accountability measures for languages like the EBacc do seem to influence both schools and students.Broadening choice – rather than narrowing it – is key to reducing inequalities between students,and to raising both participation and attainment.”