Introduction

Stepping into leadership often means overseeing subjects you’ve never taught. When it comes to Modern Foreign Languages (MFL), this can create blind spots for many. Even the most supportive senior leaders in my experience sometimes misinterpret what effective practice looks like in our subject. It’s not surprising — many leaders’ own school memories of French or German lessons involve verb tables, copying exercises, writing essays and the dreaded “listen twice, answer the questions” routine. But these misconceptions matter. They shape decisions about timetabling, curriculum design, assessment, staffing, and resourcing — and those decisions have a direct impact on teacher morale, student learning, and long-term uptake. We have all been there.

This post draws on suggestions made by members of the Facebook group I co-founded, Global Innovative Language Teachers, in their comments on a recent thread on this very topic. Many thanks to them for sharing their insights and experiences, which inspired the points below. Many more useful suggestions were made, too many to include.

What follows are thirteen realities of language teaching that senior managers need to bear in mind, illustrated with common classroom scenarios a grounded in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) research.

1. Curriculum Time is Key

What leaders assume: “One long lesson a week is better than nothing.”

The reality: Language learning is uniquely dependent on frequency and regularity. Unlike subjects where knowledge can be crammed and retained for exams, languages rely on daily rehearsal to move words and structures from short-term to long-term memory and from awareness and understanding (declarative knowledge) to fluency (procedural knowledge)

Cognitive psychology has shown that forgetting begins almost immediately (Ebbinghaus, 1885), and SLA research confirms that distributed practice — shorter, more frequent sessions — is far more effective than a single long session (Lightbown & Spada, 2013).

In some schools in Australia, languages are timetabled as a single two-hour block per week. It may look efficient on paper, but in practice is counterproductive: students face a six-day gap between exposures, during which most of the learning has already faded. By the time the next class begins, teachers spend much of the lesson reteaching, and learners rarely achieve fluency.

Common Scenario: A school reduces Year 7 MFL to one hour a week. Pupils make negligible progress, disengage, and GCSE uptake declines. Teacher skill cannot compensate for insufficient time but the MFL team takes the blame.

Implication: Protect regular, frequent MFL slots in the timetable. Two or three shorter lessons a week are far more effective than one long block.

2. Assessment Data Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story and overdoing it hampers motivation and progresss

What leaders assume: Frequent tests are reliable indicators of learning.

The reality: Language acquisition is NOT linear. Students may “know” a structure one day and forget it the next, only to rediscover it later (Ellis, 2003). Formal assessments often capture surface-level memorisation, not automatised competence and only give us the ‘illusion’ that something has been learnt (I have written extensively about this over the years). Research stresses the importance of triangulation: combining test scores, classroom observation, and, above all, spoken performance. Over-reliance on numbers alone risks distorting teaching priorities. And frankly, many of the tests I review when I visit schools when I do consultancies, are flawed in terms of construct and internal validity

Another important issue related to assessment is overdoing it. This is a common scenario in many schools and is counterproductive, especially with younger and more vulnerable learners because it misunderstands how languages are acquired.

As already mentioned above, progress in second language learning is rarely linear: learners may seem to “get” a structure one week, forget it the next, and then rediscover it later as their interlanguage gradually stabilises. Testing this zig-zag development too frequently makes normal fluctuations appear as failure.

Moreover, every test consumes time that could be spent on rich input, practice, and interaction — the activities that actually drive acquisition forward.

Finally, when assessment dominates the experience, motivation suffers: pupils begin to see language study as endless mini-exams rather than a living skill to be rehearsed and enjoyed, which can discourage persistence and uptake in the long term.

Common Scenario: A school demands half-termly vocab tests. Pupils cram and achieve high marks, but forget the material within a week. When teachers slow down to rebuild secure knowledge, scores appear to dip, creating unnecessary pressure.

Implication: Treat assessment data as just one piece of evidence. Oral ability, listening skills, and long-term retention must also count in evaluating progress.

3. Written Evidence is Not Proof of Learning

What leaders assume: If it isn’t in pupils’ books, it hasn’t been taught.

The reality: Languages live in the ear and mouth as much as on the page. Research highlights that oral interaction and listening are central to acquisition (Swain, 1995; Field, 2008). Insisting on constant written outcomes risks skewing teaching towards copying and extended writing at the expense of fluency and spontaneity. What matters is not how much ink fills a book, but whether students can understand and produce the language independently.

Common Scenario: During a book scrutiny, a head of year complains that Year 8 books look sparse. In reality, pupils had spent lessons practising role-plays, songs, and spontaneous speaking. Their progress was real but invisible on paper.

Implication: Quality assurance should value what cannot be captured in exercise books. Oral performance, recordings, and observation are vital evidence.

4. Consolidation is Not Coasting

What leaders assume: “If a lesson looks easy, pupils aren’t being stretched.”

The reality: Language learning requires overlearning — lots of practice with familiar material until it becomes automatic. Research on fluency building (Nation, 2001; Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005) shows that fluency grows through repeated encounters with language, not by racing to new content. Consolidation lessons often look “low challenge” on paper, but in fact they demand intense cognitive effort, as pupils must produce language quickly and confidently without relying on written prompts. This is how students move from knowing a rule to actually using it in real time.

Common Scenario: A teacher deliberately plans a lesson with familiar verbs and sentence frames, focusing on speed drills and spontaneous speaking. An observer marks the lesson down, commenting that “there wasn’t enough challenge.” The result? The teacher feels pressured to skip vital consolidation, and students move on with shaky foundations that collapse later.

Implication: Leaders should understand that consolidation is a form of challenge. It is not a lack of ambition but a necessary stage for fluency and long-term retention.

5. Languages Are Learned More Like Sports Than History

What leaders assume: Languages are acquired by memorising facts, like history.

The reality: Language learning is skill-building. It requires proceduralisation (DeKeyser, 2007) — the ability to use structures automatically under pressure, much like practising a musical instrument or sport. Knowing the rules is not enough; students need repeated practice in authentic contexts.

Common Scenario: Pupils can chant verb endings but freeze when asked to speak spontaneously. Their knowledge remains theoretical rather than usable.

Implication: Support practice-heavy lessons that move learners from knowing to doing. Repetition and rehearsal are the bedrock of fluency.

6. Chasing Popular Languages Isn’t Always Wise

What leaders assume: Offering the “right” fashionable language will boost uptake.

The reality: While some languages may be in vogue, research shows that long-term success in MFL depends more on continuity and curriculum coherence than on chasing trends (Lanvers & Coleman, 2013). Constantly switching languages undermines staff morale, wastes resources, and disrupts learners’ progression.

Common Scenario: A school abandons its well-established German programme to introduce Mandarin. After three years, uptake hasn’t improved and pupils lack a clear progression route. Staff morale dips as expertise is sidelined.

Implication: Involve subject specialists before making language-offer changes. Prioritise stable, well-sequenced provision over short-term popularity.

7. Feedback Needs to be Targeted, Not Constant

What leaders assume: Every mistake should be corrected immediately.

The reality: Effective feedback is selective and encourages learner self-repair (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Overcorrection overwhelms students and discourages risk-taking, while under-correction fails to push them forward. Research shows that prompts — nudges that guide learners to notice and fix their own mistakes — are particularly effective (Ellis, 2009).

Common Scenario: An observer praises a teacher who interrupts pupils constantly to correct minor slips. In reality, the constant interruptions shut down learners’ willingness to speak, reducing opportunities for meaningful practice.

Implication: When observing lessons, look for how feedback is given, not simply whether errors are eradicated. Productive mistakes are essential to learning.

8. Metacognitive Skills Need to Be Taught, Not Assumed

What leaders assume: Learners naturally know how to study languages.

The reality: Many pupils don’t know how to listen effectively, organise vocabulary, or practise retrieval. Research (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012) shows that explicit strategy instruction — teaching learners how to predict, monitor, and evaluate their own listening — significantly improves outcomes. Helping pupils become reflective, self-regulated learners is crucial for long-term success.

Common Scenario: A student admits they revised for their French test by “reading the list once the night before.” Unsurprisingly, their scores collapse later, leaving them demoralised.

Implication: Encourage departments to integrate strategy instruction into their teaching. Leaders can also support parents to promote good study habits at home, even without knowing the language.

9. Oracy Is Central, Not Peripheral. Writing is…

What leaders assume: Writing tasks yields the main evidence of progress.

The reality: Oral communication is the ultimate goal of most language learning. SLA research shows that meaningful interaction and pushed output are critical (Swain, 1995; Ellis, 2003). If leaders equate rigour with extended writing, teachers may feel obliged to neglect speaking practice. Yet the ability to hold a real conversation is often what students value most.

Common Scenario: A leader questions why a Year 9 lesson includes role-plays instead of long writing tasks. Pupils, however, leave buzzing with the confidence that they can actually chat in another language.

Implication: Value oracy as highly as literacy when evaluating MFL teaching. A class where students speak a lot is not “easy” — it is doing the core work of language learning.

10. Managing Teacher Workload Requires Subject-Specific Awareness

What leaders assume: Marking and planning in MFL is no different from other subjects.

The reality: MFL teachers face unique demands. Every written task involves checking both content and form; resources often need to be created or adapted because authentic, engaging input is not easily available “off the shelf.” Research on teacher workload (Borg, 2015) shows that generic marking policies can disproportionately burden language teachers.

Common Scenario: A school introduces a whole-school marking policy requiring a detailed written response to every error. An MFL teacher spends hours correcting every mistake in a Year 8 essay, leaving them demoralised and exhausted.

Implication: Work with MFL leaders to adapt feedback policies, ensuring they balance workload with pedagogical effectiveness. Provide access to high-quality resources to ease preparation demands.

11. Non-Specialists Struggle to Deliver Languages Effectively

What leaders assume: Any teacher can deliver an MFL lesson with a textbook.

The reality: Language teaching requires deep subject knowledge — in grammar, phonology, and acquisition processes. Even teachers of other languages are not easily interchangeable (a French teacher cannot simply switch to teaching German). Without training, non-specialists often default to superficial tasks such as vocabulary copying or translation (Borg, 2006; Graham, 2006).

Common Scenario: A PE teacher is assigned a Spanish class. Despite their best efforts, the lessons become word-list copying with minimal speaking. Pupils conclude that languages are boring and irrelevant.

Implication: Protect MFL staffing where possible. If non-specialists must teach, invest in training, mentoring, and clear guidance.

12. Mixing Heritage Speakers with Beginners Creates Inequalities

What leaders assume: Placing native or heritage speakers with beginners will raise everyone’s attainment.

The reality: Heritage speakers often have oral fluency but weaker literacy. Beginners need slow, structured input. Research (Carreira, 2016) shows that putting them together can frustrate both groups: heritage speakers feel unchallenged, while beginners feel overshadowed and lose confidence.

Common Scenario: In a Year 8 Spanish class, two native speakers dominate discussions. Other pupils stay silent, intimidated, while the heritage learners become bored with basic grammar.

Implication: Consider differentiated pathways or tasks for heritage learners. Equity and motivation should take priority over administrative convenience.

13. Culture is Not an Optional Extra

What leaders assume: Cultural topics are “nice-to-have add-ons.”

The reality: Culture is not decoration — it is central to MFL. Byram (1997) and Norton (2013) emphasise that intercultural learning fuels motivation, fosters empathy, and gives languages purpose. Reducing culture to trivia or dropping it entirely narrows students’ horizons.

Common Scenario: A department is told to cut cultural content to focus on “exam technique.” Students disengage, wondering why they are learning a language if it has no meaningful link to real people or contexts.

Implication: Encourage departments to integrate cultural knowledge throughout the curriculum. This isn’t an optional extra but a core entitlement.

Conclusions

MFL teaching is not just about grammar rules or test scores — it is about building a skill slowly, through constant exposure, practice, consolidation, and meaningful communication. Senior leaders who understand these realities are better placed to support their teams, defend curriculum time, and champion languages in their schools. Most importantly, they help create a culture where teachers can focus on what matters most: nurturing confident, motivated, and culturally curious young linguists.

For those who want to explore these challenges in more depth — and find practical strategies for addressing them in the classroom — I explore them with Steve Smith in Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Learners How to Listen (Conti & Smith, 2019) and in The target Language Toolkit (Smith and Conti, 2023)