Language GSCE mandatory for all new Year 7s ?

Hard graft to some extent yes.

Someone mentioned a thousand French words: I don't know if it was the same little pocket sized book that I had but it was split into groups of 10 words each section. Being pocket sized it was handy to keep with you and just pull it out for five minutes or so whilst waiting for the bus, so I didn't really find that hard graft but more a good use of otherwise wasted time.

I know some language teachers shudder at that method of learning, but I learnt a good deal of vocabulary that way, and a decent vocabulary always stands you in good stead.

I learned the irregular German verbs by rote too, OP. I still remember them today. And I speak fluent German as well as fluent French, English and of course Dutch. I also learned all the French irregular verbs by rote - when it comes to language learning, some things just have to be done by hard graft. It isn't fun, but it works. I really don't think anyone should have a problem with that, it's no different from learning to spell and learning times tables.

yeold - by making a language compulsory, the govt is restoring them to being part of the 'core' curriculum, along with Maths, English, Science, PE and RE. My own view is that languages belong with the subjects that children should reasonably be expected to do (with exceptions made for specific learning difficulties.) Mind you I would merrily see the end of PE, for instance. I wouldn't get rid of science absolutely, but I'm riled that DS's school want all children to sit all three sciences, which takes up a huge number of their options. There'll always be unhappy people when subjects become compulsory.

Agree with FuzzyWizard.

Also, your son's only about to enter Year 7, by the time he is in Year 10 or 11, the government is bound to have changed everything again!

Anyway, I hope your son gets off to a good start in Year 7 and likes his new school, along with all of his classmates.

See I love languages and regret that I've lost fluency in one & can barely scrape by a bit in others, but ... we have so many problems getting DS to engage with education at all. He's clever, it's not a cognitive barrier, he just has Attitude. Forcing him to scrape a C in German or whatever would have had so little value to him and been a lot of stress to his teacher watching him underachieve, especially when it would have displaced a subject DS can sometimes muster enthusiasm for.

Very well to talk about ideals of a 'rounded education', but that's for kids who value education and aren't a complete PITA. Somebody tell me why it's a great idea to have kids study a non-core subject who are going to Hate it, Resent it, and Stubbornly underachieve.

I have heard that there is an argument for dyslexic children to learn a MFL. This is because you do "basics" like practice telling the time and if you haven't picked it up already then it becomes a useful lesson that might help you fill in that gap.

With regards to RE GCSE, mine will have a qualification but it's a waste of time in terms of the positive skills like essay writing being covered in other subjects like history and English. I think that it shouldn't be compulsory at non-faith schools at all.

I am very pleased that MFL are compulsory. It is ludicrous to say that you need to be high ability to learn another language - special needs don't seem to hold back language learners in other countries so why in the UK? In my son's school one MFL is compulsory but that's all they can do (they teach three languages but can only fit one into the timetable they say, especially once they add more Maths and English lessons to teach to the more difficult GCSEs). So my son is doing Spanish at school and KS3 German via online learning.

GCSE is useless really, but it's a stepping stone to A level, when you do make rapid progress. Half way through my lower sixth year I suddenly realised I could understand German TV and read books.

As for the pointless time-filler RE, my son's school have worked out how to get a GCSE out of it, so at least it won't be a complete waste of time.

My understanding is there is an exemption for SEN students - so if they struggle with basic literacy, they don't study a foreign language (I think the idea being the extra time is used to focus on literacy).

That said, for most students I agree completely with marmite - I remember going on holidays to Europe when I was younger and being amazed that children my age in the Netherlands / Denmark / Sweden were fluent enough in English on the whole that we could communicate and play. I think for most students it's important to learn a language. My school was a language college and we all had to do two languages (French and German) between Year 7 and Year 9, and it was compulsory to take one at GCSE. I took both, Spanish was just coming in as an option (I think nowadays that's taught instead of German in a lot of UK schools) and wish I'd had the opportunity to learn that back then!

Agree with Marmite . At my Dss comprehensive it has always been compulsory to do one language to GCSE. He HATED French at primary school and chose Spanish instead adding German in year 10. He has done both at GSCE and will also be taking them at A level. I think t makes for a more rounded education.

It is truly laughable how bad the UK has been in languages. My children now go to an international school abroad with children from all over the world. The one or two British children in each year 7 class are the only ones not at least bilingual.
The other children have a large range of academic ability, but they seem able to manage languages and so should the UK!
My car driver for the first month actually speaks seven languages. The kids were amazed when they asked him and I was humbled...
The kids now do about double what the UK schools in the past have done on MFL lessons and are picking it up quickly. They had free choice but I actually pushed them both into German rather than French or Spanish as I think it more useful. German has a much steeper learning curve than Spanish and I suspect if a child in the UK is going to find a language hard, Spanish is probably the easiest to get to a GCSE standard in.
The only children who do French here are the French children
Lots have tried Mandarin and are massively enjoying it.
I feel ashamed of my own poor UK education and hope that these new requirements change it for the better. However, yes I wonder where all the teachers will come from!

I think roughly 9-10 is the norm. I would imagine most schools will be going down the route of
Eng x2
Science x2
Maths
Language
Geography or history

• 2/3 others In faith schools they would also have compulsory RS and one less option.

When I did O levels I took 8 which was academically rigorous and broad enough for A levels and working life.

My kids are doing 12 which is pretty normal here but it makes you wonder if kids of the future will be doing 15 or 20 GCSEs. They seem to be good at languages but there are other subjects that are pointless time fillers for them like RE.

On subject of Ebacc do university or FE colleges entry requirements or specify Ebacc or do they say "5 GCSE including maths and English"?

This is a bit silly but I'm also baffled why despite the government using Ebacc as a measure, they don't offer children a Ebacc certificate if they achieve it.

Having said that I broadly agree with all students doing the ebacc. I just think the way this has been done is underhanded, rather than just make it a legal requirement the government has passed the buck to Headteachers. They really have no choice but to implement this although the government wants to make it look as if they do.

That's very brave chica! Not many Heads would be willing to go from outstanding to RI. I think any resistance will be dealt with pretty swiftly though... As soon as the first few schools get ofsteded, declared RI and HTs replaced the rest will son fall in line.

DH's school isn't complying with this and is prepared to sacrifice its Outstanding status to do so. There are 7 or 8 other schools in the area doing the same so I think they're hoping to be able to make some kind of stand against it.

As a staunch comprehensive the HT very strongly believes in a well-rounded education so won't shoe horn anyone into what the government wants. He does encourage all DC to take a language at GCSE but will let those who feel strongly against it opt out.

It's an Academy which probably helps.

I do feel that everyone should study a language and agree with a PP that MFL provision at KS2 is woeful. But with a strongly academic DD who's being 'encouraged' to take a subject such as art, graphics or a tech where she shows no ability, I do understand why someone might feel unhappy about being made to take a language when they could take something else and achieve a better grade (and enjoy it a great deal more).

If the government was serious about MFL they would start by tackling the usually farcical ks2 learning. My kids learn(ed) French and it's quite frankly a waste of time. For an hour a week they'd sing songs or repeat the same vocabulary that they have been learning since y3. At the local secondary they are taught by an excellent MFL teacher who speaks 7 languages but obviously primary schools can't employ a proper MFL teacher like that without government intervention like cash and trained staff.
I don't rate ks3/ks4 MFL either. In other countries people are able to read books /novels in a foreign language. My kids are on track for a top grade but certainly couldn't pick up a picture book or simple novel in German and understand it.

They recognise in Europe that learning one language well raises literacy in your own language as well as facilitating further language learning. We have an entrenched phobia of and resistance to language learning and are convinced it ruins English. The reverse is true. Because language learning has been denigrated for so long we don't always recruit the most gifted teachers. And we don't exploit enough opportunities like employing Erasmus students on their year abroad to work in our schools. There's a little bit of that, but nowhere near enough.

When should we start teaching languages? Mine started French at a very basic level from year 3. Lots of friends enrolled their kids in private French/Spanish lessons from around reception age but my children were still struggling in the English language at that age and I thought it would have been too much of a challenge to introduce them to another language for an hour a week. I have no language skills so would not have been able to extend their understanding at home.

What do they do differently in Europe? Why are they so much better at it than us?

a well intentioned attempt to deal with the British utter crapness at languages.

Well said, and I am British. It beats me why we think languages have to be an academic subject.

I think there are two things going on here:

1. the government's intention to 'raise standards' by setting the bar higher (but without any evidence base, without extra resources, without piloting and without any proper planning. So far, so typical.

2. a well intentioned attempt to deal with the British utter crapness at languages. Sorry, but it's true. I'm from Holland - in every stream (schools are streamed by ability), every student must take English as well as Dutch. Why do you think the Dutch are so good at languages?

We need to foster a culture where learning a foreign language is the norm for everyone. As a pp has said, it fosters a better understanding of one's own language as well. The only problem is that everything I have listed under point 1) means that this way of doing it is going to be yet another utter failure.