Although foreign language skills are generally considered indispensable for all Hungarian citizens, especially in the light of forthcoming European accession, the conditions necessary for acquiring those skills receive relatively little attention. Media discussions of language teaching issues tend to be superficial, official thinking appears curiously uninformed about European tendencies, and educational policy remains unresponsive to concerns raised by the language teaching profession. 

This paper assesses language teaching in Hungarian schools from a European perspective, points out areas where the country falls below European standards and argues for improvements both in teaching and teacher training. Recommendations for these are given in the conclusion.

Language teaching in state schools

A comparison of Hungarian and European figures for foreign languages shows that Hungary has fallen behind both quantitatively and qualitatively, that is, both in the number of people able to speak foreign languages and in the proficiency levels reached by them. In a self-report survey, Terestyéni (1996) found that only 11.8% of Hungarians claimed to be able to communicate in foreign languages. On the other hand, 53% of the population of the European Union master a foreign language, but there are countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden where 80% are able to communicate in a foreign language (Eurobarometer, 2000). 

Added to the 53% of the population of EU countries who master at least one foreign language, there are 26% who can speak two (Eurobarometer, 2001). 59.1% of the multilingual EU citizens claim that they learnt their first, 55.9% their second and 39.6% their third foreign language at secondary school. When only oral skills are considered, the European figures are even higher. 71.3% of the population of EU countries possess foreign language speaking skills. This figure in the neighbouring Austria is almost equally high at 68.1% (Kurtán, 2001). In addition to the above figures, one must consider the obvious advantage that mother tongue speakers of ‘large’ languages enjoy in international communication. According to the figures provided by Eurobarometer (2000), 24% of the total population of the EU speak German as their mother tongue, 16% speak English, 16% French and another 16% Italian, while 10% speak Spanish.

In addition to the native speakers of the language, 41% of the EU population speak English as a foreign language, 19% speak French and 10% speak German (Eurobarometer 2001). The following table gives the combined figures for those who speak the language as their mother tongue and those who have learnt it as a foreign language. This means that in Europe every second person speaks English, every third German and every fourth French. In contrast, only one Hungarian out of ten can get by in any foreign language. Interestingly, or sadly, this figure is worse than in 1930, seven decades ago, when over 18% of the population spoke one foreign language (Kurtán, 2001).

The low levels of proficiency reached by Hungarian speakers also give cause for concern. Test results of sample populations of school-leaving age reveal that (when compared to an international scale) only about one third of 17-18 year-olds reach an intermediate level in English, one third reaches the target level set for 16-year olds by the European Union, and one third leaves school below this level, with rudimentary or no English at all (Szálkáné & Lukács, 1999).

In sum, in Hungary there is a considerable language deficit both in quantitative and qualitative terms. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that educational policy makers are fully aware of the problem. "So far foreign language teaching has not been a high priority aim of educational policy" (Halász & Lannert, 2000, p. 206). There is a real danger of linguistic isolation for a large majority of the population that ultimately leads to the "marginalisation of those lacking the skills necessary to communicate in an interactive Europe" (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 4). 

What factors have given rise to the present situation?

The main facts leading to the present state are well known. For 40 years (from 1950 to 1989) Russian was the compulsory first (and in many cases the only) foreign language in schools. The teaching of West European languages became possible after 1958 as a second foreign language, but unlike Russian, which was taught for 8 years (grades 5 to 12), West European languages were taught in 2 or 3 classes a week for 3-4 years only in upper secondary school. Specialised language classes in the 70s and 80s were open for a small, privileged section of the population. From the mid-80s onwards the growing demand for language courses was catered for by a newly forming private sector, and within a few years a large industry of private language schools grew up. By now these have become well-organised and articulate enough to assert their interests, and influence policy making. 

While those 40 years of compulsory Russian can partly explain the lack of foreign language knowledge in the age group over 30, they cannot explain poor language skills among the young, undergraduates and graduates. For this the mixed educational policies of the past twelve years must be made responsible. While in 1989 Russian ceased to be compulsory, and Western languages became legally available in every school, there was almost no central support for schools in managing this change, and no clear government policy to ensure quality. A `success story' in quantitative terms (i.e. in the number of pupils taking up West European languages), the switch was far less successful from the qualitative aspect. Because of a shortage of language teachers, schools often had no choice but employ untrained teachers, teachers of other subjects holding intermediate language exam certificates, retrained Russian teachers or teachers in training. A ministry regulation allowing only fully qualified language teachers to be employed in state schools is to take effect from 2002. It is questionable, however, if this deadline can be met at a time when language teaching, especially in state schools, is not regarded as an attractive career option, when fewer and fewer graduates are willing to go into state education, and a fast turnover of language teachers has become the norm rather than the exception.

Besides low pay, low prestige and poor working conditions, language teachers' disillusionment is deepened by mixed messages coming from educational policy makers. One example is a 12-year old ministry decree (slightly modified, but still in force), which allows pupils with intermediate state language exams to opt out of language classes at school. When originally introduced, the measure was expected to counterbalance a shortage of language teachers and to help cut costs in state education. In actual fact it achieved neither but created wasted opportunities and confusion in the final years of secondary school, especially in the academically more ambitious ones, where gifted pupils often reached an intermediate level by the age of 16 or 17, took the exam, gave up language classes and managed to forget enough of their hard-earned knowledge fast enough to leave school at a lower level than they had been at a year or two earlier. 

In terms of goals, standards and human resources language teaching is in a chaotic state. Hungary suffers from a serious shortage of people with adequate foreign language skills, a shortage of well-trained teachers willing to work in state schools, and a lack of adequate educational policies to address these problems.

An aggravating factor is that modern languages do not have the continuity and well-established tradition of e.g. maths or science teaching, and have always been directly influenced by political considerations. "Throughout its history, the teaching and learning of foreign languages in 
Hungary, like anywhere else in the world, has been deeply rooted in and determined by the political and economic structure of the country. Although Hungary has never had a well-designed national foreign language planning programme, foreign languages have been invariably offered at school, in 
accordance with overarching national interests for better or for worse" (Medgyes & Miklósy, 2000, p. 184). Clearly, Hungary's present and future interests would demand a `well-designed national foreign language programme' more than ever before. The urgency of the problem cannot be ignored any longer. By now the country has not only lost 40 years of compulsory Russian but has also wasted valuable time in the past 12 years, at a time when EU countries have greatly increased their foreign language teaching efforts and given them new directions.

How long will it take for Hungary to catch up? 

A crucial factor in solving this problem is the role assigned to state education, and within this the weight given to foreign languages in the curriculum. Equally important is whether the target levels set for school leavers correspond to the weight of the foreign language. Professional considerations, as well as pedagogical and practical arguments call for a higher level than the present target because (a) language learning abilities are apparently at their peak before adulthood; (b) it is only at around or above (upper-) intermediate level that the foreign language becomes an effective medium for study, work, entertainment etc., and can be sustained and developed without formal study. Stopping below this level invariably leads to fossilisation or regression of language skills (Zerkowitz, 1988).

If Hungary is to catch up with Europe, national language teaching policies should pay more attention to European Union guidelines as set out e.g. in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001). The Common European Reference Levels are widely used in Europe to describe curricular targets and examination levels.

As for levels in Hungary's National Curriculum and in the planned new school leaving examination, it is interesting to note a change in official thinking over the past years. In a 1999 Ministry document `intermediate levels' were targeted for all school leavers in at least one foreign language (FL1), with a second language (FL2) at basic level (Halász & Lannert, 2000). The Frame Curriculum, however, sets an even more modest aim: B1-B2 levels for first, and A2-B1 levels for second languages (Oktatási Minisztérium, 2000). Only secondary grammar schools are required to offer two languages; in secondary vocational schools one foreign language is compulsory. In vocational schools (school-leaving age:16; not leading to tertiary study) the target levels are A1-A2 for average and B1 for better than average pupils (Oktatási Minisztérium, 2000). This leaves the new school-leaving exam (to be introduced in secondary grammar and secondary vocational schools in 2005) with a basic dilemma: the exam will either be fitted to the national curriculum or to university entry levels. It cannot do both since these curriculum targets are below present university entry requirements. Although the problem cannot be limited to, it is the most blatant in the case of future English majors. For them entry requirements are around advanced (C1) or proficiency (C2) levels in the more prestigious universities (cf. Kontra, 2002, p. 17). 

If universities were obliged to lower their entry levels, this would set into motion a downward spiral with far-reaching negative influences. This is obvious in the case of English majors, but the language requirements of other fields of study (medicine, law, foreign trade, European studies, to name but a few) should not be underestimated either. The mismatch between secondary exit and university entry levels could only be resolved if the exam reform formed part of a large-scale reform of language teaching. The National Core Curriculum (Setényi, 1995) and the Frame Curriculum (Oktatási Minisztérium, 2000) show that no such reform is intended.

The objectives of the Frame Curriculum do not satisfy the minimum European requirement (agreed on by the Community in 1995) that all its citizens acquire proficiency in at least two foreign languages. Another shortcoming is that, compared to European guidelines, the Hungarian curriculum offers a rather impoverished content, neglecting important aspects such as cross-cultural learning, domain-related teaching, the integration of information technology in language teaching, the diversification of learner profiles, to name but a few missing elements. It also fails to take notice of recent European recommendations for a) lowering the age at which the first foreign language is introduced to the age of 6 or even pre-primary school; (b) increasing the share of foreign languages in the curriculum, in some cases to well over 20 or even 30% of the total timetable by the age of 16, as is the case for example in Denmark, Germany or Norway (Eurydice, 2001). The Frame Curriculum does not provide for advanced level courses suitable for learners at a higher than intermediate level (whether they have reached this through their school studies, by private tuition or a combination of the two, as is often the case). At present the existence of advanced level courses in state schools depends on various financial and personal, objective and subjective factors that intermingle in a complex way and lead to unpredictable and often irrational situations. In order to increase Hungarian citizens' language capabilities, secondary schools should receive firm and unequivocal support from the Ministry of Education to encourage higher level courses.

The degree of confusion in public as well as in official thinking about language teaching is aggravated by a lack of reliable statistical information. "Educational statistics have been in a state of flux since the beginning of the 1990s" (Halász & Lannert, 2000, p.74). Since reliable, in-depth, quantitative analyses are rare, it is hardly surprising if educational policy makers as well as international experts (some of whom might lack the necessary contextual knowledge) misinterpret available partial data and misjudge key issues. The Hungarian EFL profession's attitude should not heed them uncritically, but press for informed decisions that serve the country's long-term needs. 

The National Core Curriculum and the Frame Curriculum deserve a close look as they will undoubtedly exercise a strong influence on the future of language teaching in Hungary.

A comparison of the figures in Table 5 to Council of Europe guidelines reveals the wide gap that separates Hungarian language policies from European standards. While there are no prescribed European educational policies, there are recommendations for meeting the common objective of plurilingualism, i.e. the "proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures" of its citizens (Council of Europe, 2001. p. 168). Various paths may lead to this ultimate goal, and various curricular options or `scenarios' are possible. The Common European Framework offers two possible scenarios displayed in Tables 6/a and 6/b.

The goals in both scenarios are way above the levels targeted by the Hungarian National Curriculum. Not only a qualitative, but also a purely quantitative comparison of the above scenarios with the National Curriculum leads to the conclusion that present educational policies are not aimed at closing the language gap between Hungary and the EU in the foreseeable future. The areas where Hungary comes out unfavourably are shaded grey in Table 7.

Official language teaching policies are not only inadequate from a European perspective, they also fail to correspond to the importance of foreign languages as perceived by the general public and parents in particular, many of whom make great personal sacrifices to finance private language classes for their children. It seems parents spend most heavily on (1) Tutoring (in mathematics, physics, history biology etc) to help children meet school requirements (70%) and (2) language instruction (72%) as shown in Table 8.

A look at international statistics shows parents to be better judges of their children's language needs than educational authorities. International comparisons reveal that in Hungary pupils receive fewer contact hours than pupils in most OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries (Table 9). Apart from Finland, only English speaking countries such as New-Zealand or the USA, and Spanish speaking countries like Spain or Mexico teach foreign languages in fewer hours to this key age group than Hungary. As was mentioned earlier, the tendency is even more marked for 16-year olds, with some European countries devoting over 20 or even 30% of the total timetable to foreign language teaching, which in many cases includes certain subjects (e.g. European studies) being partially taught in English. International statistics also clearly show that there is a strong correspondence between the weight given to foreign language teaching in schools on the one hand and the overall language proficiency of the population on the other (c.f. the example of e.g. Germany, Denmark, Norway).

In sum, it can be said that as a result of social, political, historical and educational causes, Hungary's access to international communication, both from quantitative and qualitative aspects, is far below the country's present and future needs, whether cultural, social, economic or political. If Hungary is to overcome its massive language deficit, state education should be allowed to play a much larger role, and substantial improvements should be introduced at all levels of language teaching. For this to happen, first a national consensus on language teaching objectives should be reached :
 

Many parties are concerned with organised language learning, not only the teachers and learners in the classroom, but also educational authorities, examiners, textbook writers and publishers, etc. If they agree on objectives, they can work coherently, even if quite separately, to help learners achieve them. They are also in a position to make their own objectives and methods clear and explicit for the benefit of those who use the products of their work (Council of Europe, 2001, XII).

Teacher education

Despite its many difficulties, education in Hungary benefits from a still wide-spread public respect for learning, a shared belief in educational values such as intellectual challenge, personal development and social responsibility, and a realisation that true learning requires a sustained and disciplined effort 
from pupils and teachers alike.

Teacher training, arguably the single most important factor determining educational standards, enjoyed many decades of excellence in Hungary dating back to as early as 1872, when the first teacher training institute and its practice school were established in Budapest, lasting till 1949, when the teacher training institute was desolved after the communist take-over. Forward-looking pedagogic principles had formed the basis of the original model in the late 19th century. A teacher training institute (independent of the university) and its own practice school created ideal conditions for pedagogic research and reflective practice long before the term `reflective practice' (cf. Wallace, 1991) came into existence. The dissolution of the teacher training institute in 1949 resulted in a model more resembling a `conveyor-belt', where the role of the practice school was `to put into practice' the politically correct pedagogical principles acquired at the university. A succession of financial cuts continuing well into the present have made the model more and more restricted in its scope and depth. No wonder that, especially with demands for more effective language teaching from the mid-80s, there have been repeated calls for and attempts at reforming teacher education. 

By now the "quality of language teaching has become first and foremost a question of well trained teachers in schools" (Halász & Lannert, 2000, p. 211). The shortage is not the result of not enough language teachers being trained. "If all those graduating were to go into teaching, the problem could be solved in a single year" (ibid. p. 212). The cause of the problem is that newly trained teachers do not find teaching in state schools attractive enough, and unlike teachers of other subjects, they can easily find employment that offers better pay, better working conditions and higher status than public education does. Those, on the other hand, who go into teaching find themselves largely unprepared for important aspects of the job, and unlike in other (secretarial, business, etc.) jobs, they are thrown in at the deep end, and have few on-the-job training opportunities. Most teacher educators are aware of this problem, but find themselves helpless within a system that has `cost-effectiveness' rather than quality at the top of its agenda (Kollár, Kontra & Lukács, 2001). 

Paradoxically, while teacher training is starved of resources, it is also wasteful of them in the sense that resources are evenly spread on undergraduates who are bona fide future teachers, on those never intending to go into teaching, and on those who at best regard teaching as a safety net in case all other plans fall through. Only about one third of those trained as teachers actually go into teaching (Halász & Lannert, 2000), and in language teaching the statistics are far worse.

One solution would be to offer extended on-the_job training to novice teachers in state schools, with better pay and substantially reduced working hours (see Ryan's contribution in Lukács, 2000). Grossly underpaid, novice teachers in Hungary receive 0.5 of the per capita GDP as compared to e.g. novice teachers in the Netherlands, who receive 1.1 or those in Germany or Switzerland, who receive 1.2 of the per capita GDP (Halász & Lannert, 2001). These figures have slightly but not substantially improved with recent pay rises. It is customary in Hungary to justify low pay with teachers' short working hours, but with recent rises of teaching hours to 22 hours/week and the lengthening of the school year to 37 teaching weeks/year that add up to 814 contact hours per school year, Hungarian teachers' teaching load is already heavier than in two thirds of European countries. In Austria, Denmark, Norway the figure is 650 contact hours/year, in Belgium, Germany 720 contact hours/year and in England 800 contact hours/year (Halász & Lannert, 2000). As for pay, in Hungary, teachers need to have 15 years of teaching experience before reaching 1.0 of the per capita GDP (by that time in England they have reached 1.7, and in Germany or the Netherlands they have reached 1.9 (Halász & Lannert, 2000). 

In the face of the above conditions, individual teachers must ask themselves if there is a way for them to maintain professional standards and personal integrity.

The challenge for teachers 

At present a less than ideal system (bad pay, low status) encourages language teachers to leave schools and make a living elsewhere, which clearly diminishes pupils' chances of quality language learning. Inadequate training, lack of continued professional support, lack of supervision, poor working conditions might encourage teachers to compromise standards. Yet they should endeavour to keep their motivation, to keep their self-respect, remaining unperturbed by widely brandished cliches such `Only the least capable still remain in schools' and other similar half-truths or untruths serving to demoralise teachers even further. 

Looking at the other side of the coin, teachers should remind themselves that the quality of teaching depends first and foremost on them personally, and should not allow themselves to slip into unthinking, second-best routines. 
 

• They should remember that teaching a large, unmotivated beginners' class in three 45-minute lessons a week is no excuse for boring lessons or monotonous paper-and-pen exercises time in time out. Communicative language teaching does not start at higher levels or with smaller groups. Neither does teaching an exam class simply mean cramming for the exam.
• All students need full attention. Teachers should not concentrate only on the top or the bottom achievers in the group. Both ends have equal rights. 
• It is a fallacy to think that language teachers can keep out of general educational responsibilities. The attitude `I'm busy enough teaching English, I couldn't care less about standards of behaviour or some far-fetched educational goals' is self-defeating and makes teaching not only less rewarding but also less effective. 

A more difficult task than any of the above is for teachers to speak out publicly, to communicate necessary conditions for effective language learning to students, parents, colleagues, local and national authorities, and the public at large. It is time for EFL teachers to find their `voice' (Kramsch, 2001), and make it heard outside the profession, to make sure that language education stays high on the public agenda as long as necessary to ensure that issues are satisfactorily resolved. 

Conclusion
 

• In order to improve Hungarian citizens' foreign language capabilities state education should be allowed to pay a much larger role. 
• The EU standard of minimum two foreign languages for all citizens should be observed.
• Language instruction should start at an earlier age and have more time-table hours.
• Target levels for school-leavers should be raised. 
• Upper-intermediate and advanced courses should be encouraged and financed.
• the National Curriculum should be diversified to benefit pupils of different leanings, interests and capabilities throughout their education. It should be extended to make operational recommendations for meeting educational aims, to enhance personality development, increase inter- and intra-personal skills, develop cognitive skills, foster transferable study skills, etc.
• Cross-cultural and multi-cultural elements should form an integral part of FL planning and teaching, including L1 and L2 cultural awareness.
• Cross-curricular aspects should be emphasised at all levels.
• Domain-related (content) teaching at upper-secondary level should be made available on an optional basis.
• Provisions should be made for IT technology to be integrated into language teaching on a regular basis at upper secondary level in order to develop learner autonomy. 

To achieve these aims, the language teaching profession 
 

• should publicly speak out on policies affecting language teaching; communicate concerns and recommendations to the public as well as to policy makers.
• IATEFL-H, as a professional body, should maintain a dialogue with national policy makers, informing and advising them and, in case of controversy, mediate between policy makers and the profession.
• As a concrete step, IATEFL-H should form a task force that undertakes 
(1) to provide information to the profession on current laws and regulations as well as those in the making (through publications, on-line information, live forums, etc.),
(2) to channel feedback from the profession to educational authorities,
(3) to offer expert opinion to the Ministry on current and planned laws and regulations concerning curriculum and syllabus development, examination reform, teacher education, etc.,
(4) to assist the Ministry in obtaining reliable data on the short- and long-term effects of existing and planned regulations.

Notes

1 This paper is a written version of the plenary talk given at the 11th IATEFL-Hungary Conference at Nyíregyháza, October 7, 2001. (back)

References

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eurobarometer. 2000. http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/epo/eb.html
Eurobarometer. 2001. `Europeans and languages'. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/baroexe.pdf
Eurydice. 2001. Foreign Language Teaching in Schools in Europe. http://www.eurydice.org
Halász, G., & Lannert, J. (Eds.) (2000). Jelentés a magyar közoktatásról 2000. Budapest: Országos Közoktatási Intézet.
Kollár, K., Kontra, E.H., & Lukács, K. (2001). Koncepció és felelõsség a tanárképzésben. Unpublished manuscript.
Kontra, E. (Ed). 2002. Tájékoztató az angol-amerikai szakterületre felvételizõknek. http://seas2.elte.hu/docs/02tajeko.html
Kramsch, C. (2001). Language, culture, and voice in the teaching of English as a Foreign Language. novELTty, 8 (1), 4-20. 
Kurtán, Zs. (2001). Idegen nyelvi tantervek. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó. 
Lukács, K. (2000). Roll call: Who is missing from teacher education. Pannel discussion at IATEFL-H Budapest 2000 conference. mELTing pot, 4 (3), 19-29.
Medgyes, P., & Miklósy. K. (2000). The language situation in Hungary. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1 (2), 148-242.
Oktatási Minisztérium. (2000). Kerettanterv. Tantárgyi füzetek 2. Idegen Nyelv. Budapest.
Setényi, J. (Ed.). (1996). National core curriculum. Budapest: Ministry of Education.
Szálkáné, Gy. M. & Lukács, K. (1999). Magyar középiskolások angol nyelvi szintje európai mércék szerint. Nyelvvizsga fórum, 1 (2), 23-26.
Terestyéni, T. (1996). Vizsgálat az idegennyelv-tudásról. Modern Nyelvoktatás, 3, 3-16.
Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers. A reflective approach. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H, G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zerkowitz, J. (1988). Tanítsunk nyelveket. Általános módszertan nyelvtanárok számára. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.