The Oracy Cambridge response to the Oracy Education Commission report

by the Oracy Cambridge team

Earlier this month, the Oracy Education Commission (OEC) published its report, We need to talk. This comes at a time when the government has made clear their intention to place oracy at the heart of their mission to transform education. In a recent interview, Bridget Phillipson suggested that this will primarily be achieved through the ongoing Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR), chaired by Professor Becky Francis.
We are profoundly grateful to Voice 21, Geoff Barton and the commissioners for writing this report. It has been wonderful to see the way in which it has been warmly embraced by the teaching profession and given the reception it so richly deserves.

Having now had time to reflect on the OEC report, in this post the Oracy Cambridge team share our collective views about its strengths and also where we feel there are further areas that the CAR panel should consider.

Strengths

1. We welcome the OEC’s recommendations, which make a strong case for establishing oracy as the fourth ‘R’ (alongside reading, writing and arithmetic) – a foundational entitlement for every child throughout their schooling.
2. We appreciate the emphasis on three aspects of oracy – learning to talk, learning through talk and learning about talk. Each of these three pillars are well represented in the OEC report, reflecting a balanced approach to oracy development.
3. We agree wholeheartedly that oracy education should not emphasise ‘standard English’ and that it should ‘foster students’ confidence and pride in their authentic voices’.
4. The distinction made between ‘oracy’ and ‘oracy education’ is helpful.
5. We were delighted to see references to the Oracy Skills Framework, the importance of dialogue, and exploratory talk – ideas that are central to our work at Oracy Cambridge.
6. We enjoyed reading the case studies, which showcase what oracy education looks like in a range of real-world settings.
7. We have also very much enjoyed listening to the Oracy Commission podcast – a wonderful resource which reveals widespread support and appreciation for oracy education in its many and varied forms.

Points of interest for further consideration

1. We recognise the value of disciplinary oracy, and that it is important to recognise domain-specific aspects in speaking like a scientist, a historian, and a mathematician, for example. But while disciplinary oracy is important, particularly in secondary schools, most oracy skills are applicable across a range of contexts. Alongside disciplinary oracy, it is also important to teach transdisciplinary or transferrable oracy skills. Both are important, and both are necessary.
2. Although one case study mentions the value of oracy lessons, elsewhere the report suggests that the skills of spoken language and communication ‘do not need to be taught as part of a discrete “oracy lesson” and can be developed effectively as part of well-designed subject curricula’. We strongly believe in the value of discrete oracy lessons, and we advocate their use in primary schools and at key stage 3. Nobody would argue against the need for distinct lessons that focus on aspects of reading, writing and arithmetic. If oracy is to be established as ‘the fourth R’ then moving towards separate oracy lessons (as well as embedding oracy across the curriculum) is the right way forward. This would raise the status of oracy education and would help ensure that it doesn’t get squeezed out in the context of subject learning. This said, it is important that schools should have the autonomy to decide the most effective balance for their context, ensuring a comprehensive approach to oracy without compartmentalising it into isolated lessons.
3. We welcome the report’s emphasis on dialogic teaching and the categorisation of four ‘modes of talk’ (building understanding, debating and persuading, negotiating and making change, expressing and performing). However, we are concerned that this categorisation is presented as fixed (‘the four modes’) rather than flexible (‘four modes’) and that it leans heavily toward performative aspects of talk. We feel this risks overlooking the fundamental, two-way nature of dialogic teaching, where learning through talk goes beyond steering students towards received knowledge. True dialogic learning occurs when teachers and students engage in shared meaning-making, striving to understand and respond to each other’s perspectives. This approach not only extends students’ thinking and understanding but also cultivates a vital, humanising element, which is increasingly essential for fostering civic understanding in our divided world. Therefore, we strongly advocate that dialogue itself, as a mode of talk that promotes mutual understanding and human connection, should be made explicit in any framework of talk.
4. We appreciate that the report provides a high-level overview of oracy education, and that it does not seek to explore the granular detail of how oracy is developed in classrooms. This said, we were surprised to see that ground rules (also known as talk rules, or discussion guidelines) did not feature in the report, since these are a fundamental and practical first step in developing exploratory talk.
5. Although the report emphasises the importance of recognising non-standard dialects, it does not mention the need to recognise and celebrate students’ home languages. Asking students who speak English as an Additional Language (EAL) to discuss curriculum content and to practise their oracy skills in their home language can be hugely beneficial.
6. We welcome the report’s mention of drama-based pedagogy as an approach to learning to, through, and about talk. We hope that the CAR will also recognise the value of philosophical inquiry as a further essential pathway for fostering dialogic teaching and learning. Philosophical inquiry engages students in structured, extended, open-ended discussions that invite them to think critically and creatively, question assumptions, explore diverse perspectives, and engage in reasoned dialogue with others.
7. We appreciate the OEC’s attempt to arrive at a new definition for the word oracy. However, we feel that the definition offered (‘Articulating ideas, developing understanding and engaging with others through speaking, listening and communication’) would benefit from further development. For example, the definition includes a footnote explaining the use of the word ‘communication’. If a definition requires a footnote, it lacks the clarity that a definition really needs. In addition, we feel that the word ‘articulating’ is problematic, as its meaning too is open to interpretation. We offer the following, alternative definition: ‘Oracy is the ability to use the skills of speaking, listening and non-verbal communication for a wide range of purposes.’
8. We feel that we should continue to work together to create a clearer long-term vision in preparation for the curriculum review. For example, where the report highlights the need to ‘establish oracy as the fourth ‘R’ and increase its prominence in the national curriculum’, this could be strengthened to say ‘the national curriculum should give oracy equal status to the other three Rs’.
9. We agree with the report’s recommendations about implementing oracy, which focus on teacher training, assessing oracy, and accountability. However, the task that lies ahead – implementing oracy on a national scale – is vastly complex and will require much more than these high-level, structural changes, necessary though they may be. We are keen to contribute to the development of a clear plan that details stages of implementation at a number of levels (e.g. national policy, initial teacher training, school policy, pupil outcomes), and a recommended timeline.

There is much more to say about these matters, and we look forward to submitting evidence to the CAR to share our thoughts in greater depth and to offer our assistance and expertise in transforming the government’s vision into reality.
We are grateful to the Oracy Commissioners for writing this report. On balance, we view it as a welcome and significant step in the right direction, and we hope that our friendly critique is taken in the same collegiate spirit and desire to improve outcomes for children and young people in which the report was written.