MFL not compulsory at KS4

IguanaTail and SEN kids, in my experience, are perfectly able to access languages if they want

I'm quite intrigued by this comment.

Is there a reason why, if a child with SEN is struggling to learn English (spoken and/or written) when they are constantly exposed to it in every day life, they would not also struggle with learning a MFL?

Genuine question as I have no knowledge of teaching MFL.

Surely it would depend on the nature of their SEN?

I agree, BertrandRussell - maths and MFL cannot be acquired by reading a book or watching media (both of which go a really long way in the acquisition of English and also history and RE). You have to concentrate on things that aren't right in front of your nose.

It's like maths- people don't mind at all saying they are no good at maths. But they go to huge lengths to conceal not being very good at reading.

Maths and languages- I think people think you can do them by talent alone. It's OK to say you're not good at them- ir's just like not being very good at drawing or having no head for heights.They don't realise they need to work at them!

I agree - it's the mindset.

I don't know what the answer is. I just know that letting kids say "oh I'm no good at languages" is just a cop out. A GCSE in a MFL is a pretty bloody low bar, to be frank - you don't have to be "good at languages" to get a GCSE. I genuinely think it's the linguistic arrogance of the English- everyone speaks English, so we regard our incompetence at other people's languages as a badge of honour. And it's nothing about mouth shape or accent- you can get a GCSE talking entirely Stratford-atte-Bowe.......

To be fair, I think that depends on the SEN. If they have a SALT issue around communication/understanding/semantics, it's definitely not going to help. Ds can learn the grammatical rules, but not apply them effectively to writing or speaking the language. He has the same problem with English (top marks for SPAG, but low for English, as he can't generalise the rules).

Maybe he would be one of the 2 or 3 kids you mentioned, but I suspect there are quite a few children with similar SEN profiles that would struggle like he does.

Children's muscles in their mouths are formed by the age of 10, so no amount of practice after that age will mean they have a perfect accent (although they can certainly improve). Immersion at a young age would help immeasurably. I've taught kids of every ability range, and SEN kids, in my experience, are perfectly able to access languages if they want. I can only think of 2 or 3 kids out of many thousands who were really really bad at languages. There is nothing inherent in the brain of a UK child which means they are not as able to communicate as children from other countries.

...It's not even a very stealthy boast...

BertrandRussell do you think the problem with languages is that we don't start them young enough in the UK? From what I've read, children are far more receptive to new languages at a young age than they are in teenage years.

I'm just interested, I don't know the answer myself, but I have noticed that, over the years, pupils in my dcs' classes who come from bilingual families seem to have taken to the introduction of French in primary school much better than those that have never studied a language at all. I also have a feeling dd (6) would be very receptive learning a language at the moment, but it is no longer offered at her school and we are currently unable to afford private tuition. Unfortunately, dh and I aren't much help to her as neither of us are strong on MFL.

I accept your post did say, 'SEN apart', but there are a remarkable number of pupils that fall through the cracks in the SEN system or are considered 'not bad enough' for support/intervention. Surely those pupils need to be able to make individual, appropriate choices at GCSE, based on their aptitudes, abilities and potential to succeed, rather than a blanket policy? In fact, shouldn't pupils be encouraged to study what they are good at, so that they leave school with good qualifications that demonstrate their strengths, rather than all being funnelled through the same grinder. Education shouldn't be a one-size fits all process, by it's very nature it should be highly individual.

In our case, ds does have diagnosed SEN (although had we not fought he would have just been constantly been written off as 'not bad enough to need any help' regardless of how much he was struggling). His strengths lie in fact-based subjects/sciences/technology. Contrary to his primary school, who were the ones that claimed he had no SEN. He actually struggles with the semantics and complexities of communicating and understanding others using English, so taking on a new language on top is an awful lot to ask of him. We did try to give him a leg-up, so to speak, by paying for the additional French lessons/club in infants, but after three years he still couldn't string a sentence together, so we pulled him out. (Something he was very cross about, as the French teacher had a habit of rewarding effort with sweets. )

A Cambridge Triple First! Wow - I haven't seen one of those on Mumsnet before. Careful- you are such a rara avis your anonymity may not be as anonymous as you think.

I did neither history nor geography to O level. So would not qualify for Ebacc. Somehow my Cambridge triple First makes up for my non-compliance with Gove's utter rubbish and only serve to prove its utter irrelevance to later progress.

The Ebacc is only 5 subjects. Plent of space for other subjects.

And, SEN apart, I just front get this "can't do languages" thing. How come people in other countries can do languages? We have this knee jerk "anti language everyone should speak Enflish" attitude- it's not going to help much in the global market, is it? It just encourages insularity.

Clary - I think you might soon know of quite a few who are making it compulsory.

BertrandRussell - Not everyone can manage a Language, and there are many bright kids that would quite reasonably prefer music or art to history or geography, or to load up with computer science, additional maths, electronics, astronomy..... I'm actually a fan of proper subjects, rather than hobbies disguised as subjects, or trendy rubbish, but to be so narrow in his list of acceptable subjects was a huge mistake. Pupils' individual needs must come before the inanely narrow views of M. Gove.

I don't personally know of any school that makes MFL GCSE compulsory.

I know of some that say all of set 1 have to do it. Also some (lots) that say students must choose one of Hist/Geog/MFL/Computing (that's to do with Progress 8 not Ebacc).

I don't think MFL GCSE is for everyone. My DS1 (not very academically able!) took Spanish and despite my support (I teach MFL) and him initially wanting to do the subject, it was his worst GCSE grade (admittedly there were other reasons, but overall MFL was probably not for him!). I taught bottom set in year 9 last year and there are certainly some studens there for whom MFL GCSE would not have been a good idea. Luckily they agreed :)

Ah indeed, maybe it should!

Maths - everyone needs to be highly encouraged to reach a standard of maths to enable them to live functional everyday lives.
So to me that is something like

• percentages
• measures
• fractions
• graph reading
• basics of probability
• currency conversion

English - English Language GCSE was very hard for my literate, articulate DD. She has no problem with English, except for detailed analysis or language points, or arguing a topic off the top of her head. So again to me I'm not convinced it is a basic baseline educational test. And you do need some kind a award to show employers you are competent in our language.

Science GCSE. To me, core science GCSE was a good coverage of science for every day life, so that seems about right. Additional science gives extra insight, so I would encourage but not mandate for all.

So yes I agree that the Ebacc covers a good range and I have and will encourage my DDs to do those subjects if they are capable. However, linking Ofsted to enforcing that all pupils do all Ebacc to GCSE seems to me to be wrong, and not putting the needs of individual pupils first.

At DD's school they have to take Citizenship GCSE along with the core subjects. An MFL is not compulsory.

I would far rather DD had taken French than Citizenship as it is a subject she is running at a D in. If she had taken French I could have supported her more. Unfortunately the French teachers at her school aren't very good.

Teen why wouldn't that argument extend to kids who are not going to achieve in maths, English or science?

Bertrand Yes and No.

Yes, it is a good well rounded mix.

But if a child isn't going to be able to achieve at the MFL or the Humanity, either through lack of interest or lack of ability, then why waste their (and their teacher's) time forcing them to do it, rather than letting them do something they can achieve in?

As it turned out, despite her interest in the subject, my DD struggled massively with History. Often 'source questions' involved looking at and interpreting details from a picture. For some reason her dyspraxic brain finds that more or less impossible. So how would it have helped her to continue with History just for the sake of entering the ebacc?

So maybe schools should be judged on
a) making ebacc available to anyone who wants to do it
b) (possibly) a target % for those achieving it

Good lord- English, maths, science, a MFL and a humanity- "twisted views about proper subjects"? Frankly, it's one of the few sensible things he's ever said!

No. But it was said that schools that didn't force the ebacc would be unable to access the highest ratings, not highest rating.

Um, so there will be only 2 new Ofsted grades: pass or fail?

I could not give a damn about the ebacc - all it represents is Michael Gove's twisted views as to what constitutes real subjects. My hat will go off to any school that ignores this rubbish. My son's school does iGCSEs which are not on the moron Gove's league tables either. So I think I am with you red sky...!

Ds1 is at an independent school and has just gone into Y9.

We've just been told he doesn't have to take an MFL at GCSE. He has SEN and has missed all the lessons in one MFL subject completely so far, due to out of class support in another area. He has also struggled with the MFL he has studied, so it would make no logical sense at all to try and force him through a GCSE which he would hate, struggle with and inevitably fail.

He also has very clear ideas about what career he wants and MFL isn't necessary for that. I would rather he took fewer, more relevant subjects that he can get good grades in and will help him get the job he really wants to do, than spend the next couple of years feeling like a failure, only to have it confirmed when he fails his GCSE.

To be honest I am finding the whole Y9 options thing a bit mind boggling. When I was at school (O Levels, because I am ancient) you just chose what you were best at and enjoyed studying, providing they were from different study blocks, then you took an exam for every subject you were taking - simple. I don't even remember my parents being involved with the process very much.

Now we have to look at potential careers, calculate points, work out which will help towards the right A Levels and ultimately University place etc. Then, when you start looking into it, the subjects you think might help towards a particular career aren't necessarily the ones that colleges/universities want them to have. (Computer Studies/Info Tech to do Computer Science being a prime example.)

I need to get my head around it all before the school starts raising it, because ds1 will be lost without a lot of guidance and support.