Being able to speak confidently will become “the right of every child” with nobody left out, the education secretary promised earlier this month, as she announced that oracy will have equal status to reading and writing in the revised national curriculum.
But there is a risk that England’s new enthusiasm for oracy could end up rewarding the children who already find speaking easiest.
The government is right to raise the status of oracy. The ability to speak, listen, explain, question and participate confidently matters in school, work and life, and ministers are also right to argue that communication has too often been a marker of privilege.
But if oracy is to sit alongside reading and writing as a core educational priority, it must be designed for the children who struggle most to communicate, not just those who need more chances to practise.
Speech and language challenges
For around one in five children, learning to talk and understand words is not straightforward. Speech and language challenges are now the largest identified category of special educational need in primary schools, yet more than half of children who struggle with talking and understanding words are not being identified by schools.
The problem is not shyness, lack of confidence or a reluctance to put up a hand for many pupils, but the underlying language skills oracy rests on: processing the teacher’s question, finding the words to explain an idea, constructing a sentence, understanding unfamiliar vocabulary, following instructions, working out what somebody else means.
And when language falters, difficulties can appear everywhere else.
In our research, 78 per cent of teachers reported that children were being indirectly punished because of their speech and language challenges. For example, if they do not understand an instruction in the classroom, they may be labelled inattentive.
The academic consequences are equally striking. Children with speech and language challenges are six times more likely to be behind in English and 11 times more likely to be behind in maths.
Try taking part in a high-quality classroom discussion when you find it difficult to process spoken language, or justifying an answer when constructing a sentence is a challenge.
Inclusion by design
The push on oracy, therefore, needs to be underpinned by one simple principle: inclusion by design.
It is not enough to create more opportunities for pupils to talk. Schools also need the knowledge and tools to recognise when a child is unable, rather than unwilling, to participate.
There is much to welcome in calls for oracy to be explicitly taught, structured and scaffolded. But scaffolding must work for children whose speech and language development differs from that of their peers.
To do this, teachers need to distinguish between a pupil who lacks confidence and one who is struggling with language itself. They need practical ways to adapt questions, instructions and classroom discussion, as well as clear routes to further advice when concerns arise.
Without this, a national oracy framework risks becoming another initiative that most benefits those already best placed to succeed.
That matters because language development also follows a social gradient. Children in disadvantaged communities are more likely to experience weaker language outcomes, while their families may be less likely to access early-childhood services or receive a diagnosis and support.
So if ministers are serious about tackling the privilege gap in communication, the answer must go beyond giving every pupil more opportunities to speak.
It must include identifying and supporting those for whom communication itself is the barrier.
Useful support can begin without every child needing to wait for the most specialist intervention.
Some families need straightforward, evidence-based information. Some children need classroom adaptations. Some parents need practical activities they can use immediately. Others require specialist assessment, therapy and sometimes assistive technology.
A sensible system distinguishes between these needs and responds early.
Training and pathways for specialist help
As the government develops its approach to oracy, any national framework should therefore be backed by training on speech, language and communication development, clear pathways for children who need specialist help, and information for families on how to support their child’s development, no matter what their child’s level of need. Ministers should also be clear that they recognise the definition of oracy in the curriculum review, so that children who communicate through signing or using assistive technology are part of the oracy movement.
Measures of progress will also need care. A child with a language disorder should not simply be judged against an ideal of fluent verbal performance. Progress for them may mean understanding more, contributing more successfully or expressing an idea that was previously inaccessible.
There is a crucial difference between teaching children how to use their voice and assuming that every child starts with equal access to one.
The case for oracy has largely been won. Get it right and the government’s renewed emphasis could improve learning, confidence and opportunity for millions of children.
Get it wrong and the “fourth R” could leave behind precisely the pupils who need it most.
Louisa Reeves is the director of policy and evidence at Speech and Language UK and a speech and language therapist
To get essential briefings from Tes magazine delivered directly to your inbox, sign up to our newsletters. And stay up to date with the latest education news via the Tes magazine mobile app - available on iOS and on Android
