Lucy Powell’s recent announcement that oracy will be given equal status to reading and writing within the new English curriculum has sparked intense debate. Whilst there is compelling evidence to suggest classroom talk enhances learning, there are concerns within the education community that oracy is a nebulous term and that without a shared understanding of the value and scope of oracy education, an increased focus on classroom talk is unlikely to be of benefit to young people.
On one side of the debate, there are concerns that if we define the term oracy as the ability to use spoken language to articulate ideas and express thoughts verbally, we risk conceptualising oracy as a narrow set of competencies or skills that pupils can be deemed to possess to a greater or lesser extent. This could limit the focus of oracy education to instruction in specific linguistic practices that carry social value, such as formal, academic spoken language structures and spoken standard English. On the other side of the debate are those concerned that if we adopt a more expansive notion of oracy, any example of classroom talk can be admitted as legitimate curriculum content, regardless of whether it leads to enhanced learning. From this perspective, a renewed focus on oracy is likely to lower standards and lead to what Michael Gove characterised as ‘idle chatter’.
Alongside this lack of clarity about the scope of oracy, there is disagreement about the purpose of oracy education. There are those who view oracy in instrumental terms, arguing that developing children’s spoken language skills and their capacity to articulate themselves enables them to succeed academically and in the world of employment. Others view oracy as a means of developing pupils’ capacity to learn and think. They see spoken language is a mode for exploring ideas, testing interpretations, challenging assumptions and developing understanding. Others point to the value of oracy in supporting agency in learning and critical engagement, equipping pupils with the skills needed to question ideas and information, evaluate arguments and advocate for themselves.
The Oracy Commission (2024) report, We Need to Talk, adopts a broad view of oracy education encompassing learning to talk, learning through talk and learning about talk. In learning to talk, pupils are supported to develop speaking, listening and communication skills to enable them to express themselves meaningfully across a range of contexts. In learning through talk, pupils use talk as a tool for learning, reasoning and understanding. In learning about talk, pupils develop an understanding of how spoken language works, how it varies according to purpose, audience and context and how it shapes power relations.
Ultimately, the most important debate within the English teaching community isn’t about whether oracy should be given equal status to reading and writing. It’s about how oracy might be conceptualised within the curriculum, whose linguistic practices are valued and what educational purposes they serve. The revised National Curriculum and the Department for Education’s proposed oracy framework will be critical in determining this.
Deb Niven is senior lecturer in the Sheffield Institute of Education. She is currently working on her doctorate which explores pupil and teacher discourses in relation to reading practices in secondary schools.
Leave a Reply