To think teaching languages in primary school (the way we do it) is a waste of time?

[Condover]

Or is it just my DC's school?

DS1 is just finishing Yr6 and DS2 Yr4. Throughout the school they have been "learning" Spanish. This is taught by a good HLTA, but she has lots of other duties in the 10 class school and takes each class for Spanish for one session a week, but only for half a term at a time. DS2 has done Spanish weekly this half-term, but not last and he did the half-term before iyswim. DS1 has done no Spanish in the build-up to SATS (not tested) and none since, as they don't appear to have done any actual school work for weeks.

Anyway they can both say hello & goodbye and count to 10 and they know a couple of songs but that's about the extent of 4 years' learning for DS1 (bright boy all 5s in SATS). He goes to a (local) secondary school next year which offers only French and German.

Are all primaries like this? If so, it's no wonder the British are so notoriously poor at languages.

I have to ask though, why has Spanish suddenly become all the rage?

It's phonetic so easier to learn, particularly as children in primary don't always have English spelling mastered.

There is more chance of many children speaking Spanish on holiday than French.

I must admit I thought primary schools only did this to 'look good' to prospective parents. However, DD is just finishing reception where they learn french and knows several basic phrases; how are you?/I'm fine, thank you, what is your name?/my name is xxx, how old are you?/I am x, can name several colours/animals, count to 12 and knows some songs. I am actually really impressed! They do have someone who comes to teach the class, opposed to normal teacher, and it is every week all year round.

So I don't think it is always a waste of time, most schools just need a better approach.

You can't compare children who have learned another language through schooling overseas, as so much of their language acquisition will have come from mixing with native speakers and through play, not all through formal teaching. Newly arrived children in English schools pick up our language incredibly fast and are often fluent within a year or so.

The reality of teaching a language formally in primary school is that at best, it will only be timetabled for one lesson each week, with perhaps some songs, stories etc thrown in. Without being immersed in a language, it's fairly understandable that even children who's school covers MFL within their curriculum, will leave with only an understanding of the basics.

In our school French is timetabled and taught weekly from years 3-6 but not with a view to producing fluent speakers. The sessions do obviously cover the acquisition of basic language, but also an understanding of the culture, and opportunities to hear native speakers (even if their understanding of what is actually being said is limited).

As a primary school teacher myself, I can only agree with the poster who said that timetabling is the biggest barrier to so many of the important, but not statutory, subjects. Unfortunately, SATs testing and league tables has lead to literacy and numeracy being the only truly valued subjects at primary level. At the end of a year, no HT will ever question why children haven't achieved a level X in French, art, or DT. It's a shame for those children who thrive in areas outside of the core subjects.

Another point to bear in mind is that in France, Spain etc... many of the native children's parents will have at least some grasp of the English language and so can help their children to develop what they have learned in the classroom. How many of us have a good enough knowledge of another language to do this?

One hour per week at primary school age is simply not enough to produce a fluent French speaker.

I wouldn't call it a waste of time though.

It's the same here in Australia. One hour a week. Such a waste of time and money I think. Either teach a language properly - one lesson a day - or stop pretending.

YABU to think it's just at primary level - the whole teaching of MFL in this country needs a massive overhaul (this is NOT a dig at teachers, they have to work with the curriculum). My DCs at secondary can list items in a pencil case but can't hold a meaningful conversation without learning it parrot fashion. In this global market, languages are an essential tool and really need more priority, starting at primary. It's quite embarrassing on holiday when the other kids can speak French, German, English, Spanish and a lot of our kids can barely speak English. They could easily have a dedicated MFL primary teacher go to lots of schools, like they do with the music teachers. This would help free up a little of the class teachers time too - of course that would cost money so we know it won't happen.

DD used to teach MFL in a comprehensive. She said it was a real problem because children came in in Year 7 convinced they could speak Spenish/French/German and they basically had to reteach a lot of it because it hadn't been taught very well.
If we are going to teach languages at Primary level we need teachers who are properly trained in languages.
ninjawomble I do know of a cluster where they did employ a peripatetic language teacher. She was employed because she was a native French speaker, but in fact needed someone with her to discipline the classes so her contract was ended.