to think this government hasn't got a clue about education- why should all children be made to take MFL at GCSE?

[LuluJakey1]

What is it with the ill-thought out education ideas this government has? Why should every child take a GCSE in MFL? It is not something many children enjoy or feel has relevance to them.

Why should a school not be able to be outstanding if it does not make all students take a GCSE in MFL?

^I would rather have music and art as compulsory subjects instead of science and language but hey ho...
^

I am rubbish at both of those, but did do French, German and my family second lang at GCSE and A level French and Spanish. I did do an extra curricular required for Wednesday afternoons and usually sport Italian class too that was full of Leisure and Tourism students who really didn't want to be there. Assessment consisted of learn these two sentences. They regularly failed.

I like the idea if European Studies or International Studies with a language component. I really think languages are important and with our technology can be brought to life.

Who said anything about me going on anecdotes? I work in a languages dept at a university. I know about the employability records of our students. Why is the study I refer to stating that languages graduates earn 25% more worth less in your view than your study citing 2%? As I said, they are both of limited value especially as we haven't got access to the data they use. Where have I said that all companies require a language other than English? I haven't. I've said that it's hugely regrettable that English speakers rely on others to learn English and decide that this means they don't have to bother with languages. I've said that languages give you a very impressive set of skills and flexibility which make you highly employable, and I don't share your view at all that it's all about money.

The two studies are not necessarily in disagreement: comparing across the range of degrees and so including medicine, engineering and accountancy would be different to comparing with humanities graduates.

Languages well taught at a younger age would give us a sounder base but lets not berate those who (most likely quite logically) decide at GCSE level in school that it's not the right choice for them.

My point re Polish plumbers etc and MFL is that it is not an especially academic skill to learn another language. There are many millions of functionally illiterate people who can master several languages.

I would be really interested to know how much MFL is taught in Polish schools. Does anyone know? I suspect that my assertion that learning how to learn a language at school plays apart here.

Yet again Education Policy is being set based on dogma rather than evidence.
Forcing all children to study an MFL is just stupid.

But reality never got in the way of Gove and his little poodle Morgan.

rennie I believe they all learn languages at primary, and at high school the norm is that they study two or three MFLs. There are also a lot of private language schools as parents want their kids to go to extra tuition, if they feel that they aren't getting enough in school.

I guess the decision wasn't based so much on dogma but this all-party parliamentary group report which finds:

"Our overall conclusion is that the national deficit in languages is now so serious that it needs to be acknowledged and redressed by coordinated government action across a range of departments including the FCO, BIS, the Home Office and the Department for Education."

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224231/evidence-appg.pdf

It appears that our national crapness with languages is holding us back as a country.

But Noble
Supporting languages need not involve making them compulsory for children who will not benefit.

Supporting languages should involve making it compulsory for schools to offer at least 2 languages per hundred children in the cohort
DCs comp used to be able to hit that target before the funding was diverted, they could again

Sally are you saying that your knowledge of employability of language students as opposed to others is the same as an economist/statistician's analysis - because i find that quite surprising - I'm amazed! I see a lack of logic being involved here - English is the language that people around the world communicate in. Learning other languages is enriching without a doubt, in my experience, but I travel a lot and i get a kick out of learning...so I'm not bothered about the return on my time. And money is important, however much you wish it was not so.

No of course I'm not. I'm saying (again) that I don't think either study has much credibility or validity here, because we don't know enough about the criteria used. And I'm saying that I'm not relying on anecdote, since I work in an environment which allows me to know what MFL graduates go on to do. And money for me is not the most important thing. I don't think it's all about money. I didn't say money wasn't important at all.

An. Mfl gcse should teach pupils how to politely conduct basic interactions and that they can learn to do so I any language rather thanbeing scared of forrin. It means that they can consider using the europe freedom of movement when there's a UK downturn in their industry or can move towards an international role if more senior.

Everyone can benefit, and should be encouraged to do so.

I wonder how many people would move during an economic down turn, stastically not very many - even to another apart of the country. Moving
is harder than it sounds. Dh and i have bounced around the world and had lots of fun doing it, we willingly travel but once we had kids we felt they needed grounding and we will stay put until they abandon us.

What MFL graduates earn is irrelevant to the question. Those students would choose it anyway at GCSE. What the government are talking about is all students being forced to study it at GCSE- 95% of whom would never study it again.

That Polish workers come her and learn English is because:
a) English is the truly international language taught and spoken almost eveywhere. World media and entertainment is in English.
b) They are not all being forced to take English Langauge GCSE - as a study if grammar, vocanbulary and correct pronunciation. They are learning to speak and use the language practically.
That is not what the government are making children do with MFL. They are forcing them to study it in terms of learning complicated grammar, strings of vocabulary, verb forms, listening tests and comprehensions. It is not learning a language in any useful or fluent way.

Still no one has answered the question about how an outstanding school will no longer be able to be outstanding even with amazing results, unless every student takes GCSE MFL.

It is an immoral, back-door way of forcing inappropriate curriculum choice on children by threatening schools' Ofsted grading unless they comply.

If I had a kid who was very serious about medicine, I'd be looking into whether there was a way for him to study Polish or Urdu--plenty of patients speaking those languages and not much English turn up at surgeries. It would certainly make him look like a boy who was very serious about being a good doctor.

I remember during the Charlie Hebdo thing being quite shocked by people who didn't know what "Je suis" meant.

I think I'd want my daughter to study at least a basic level of French because of the whole question of "cultural literacy." Snippets of French turn up in educated discourse and high-level written material all the timeI'd like her to be able to understand the references instantly, without feeling intimidated or ignorant because of her lack of knowledge. I'd hate it if I was watching something like an Eddie Izzard "Franglais" type comic routine and I couldn't follow what he was on aboutI'd feel like I was lacking in knowledge that other people had been initiated into.

I also think that there is some value in the "struggle" of learning a non-native language--the fact that it reinforces knowledge of grammar in your own language, the fact that it teaches you to have a little humility and empathy when dealing with people who are trying to speak English to you and not expressing themselves very clearly.

I am raising my daughter bilingually in Japan so she gets two languages anyway, without the need for formal study--but I feel that going through the process of learning a bit of someone else's language is actually part of a well-rounded education. If she didn't go through this, I would feel that she was missing out on something important.

This thread is so depressing. I work in the language training industry and we have loads of native English speakers who are learning foreign languages - lessons paid for by their company - because it is genuinely valuable to be able to communicate in other languages if you work in a multinational or a company which trades overseas. Language aptitude is not some magical skill that English speakers don't have. Language learning skills are hardwired into the human brain and bilingualism is commonplace for millions upon millions worldwide, even in areas where education standards are poor (eg Afghanistan where many people speak dari pashto and understand urdu and farsi as they are similar languages).

Britain's lack of good linguists has consequences. For example, we have very few people working in the EU civil service and one reason for that is that you must speak 2 languages to get a job there. What impact has that had on British (lack of) influence on eu policies etc? And our graduates now compete with eu graduates for lots of milk round jobs at multinationals. All of whom have a second or third language as standard. It is really important that we improve our language learning record as a nation.

It's also depressing that people are automatically assuming that what is best for high ability kids is what is best for all kids and that education provision should automatically be geared for that group.

I agree that studying a language is beneficial to all children. It can help you in your understanding of your native language, helps with verbal reasoning and even if you don't attain a high level in the language you do in school, it gives a basis for future learning.

As previous posters have said, it's not compulsory. Ds recently dropped French but took up Spanish which he loves. I insisted he did a language, it's useful and he's more than capable.

Is it a good idea for most children to take a mfl at gcse - yes. Should all children in mainstream have to take a gcse in it, including those who are struggling to get a gcse grade g in any subject-no.

I agree lambsie.

I would be really interested to know how much MFL is taught in Polish schools

They study two MFL to the equivalent of GCSE, most often English and German.

In my children's French comprehensive school, despite a deprived intake, 50% of the Y10 kids voluntarily take two additional hours of MFL a week (this is in addition to the usual timetable and not instead of another subject).

I really don't get this obsession with the ideal that learning a MFL is "academic".

The issue is with the ridiculously narrow and prescriptive GCSE system, not with teaching MFL.

I have taught English to older Polish teenagers and they were amazing language learners.

I'd say probably only the Dutch and the Scandinavians were "better". (in terms of fluency/accuracy)

Obviously Dutch and Scandinavian languages are far more similar to English than French etc but still, these kids were impressive.

But please, yes, let's not make the poor "I'm crap at X Y and Z and proud of it!" mentality have to give its head a wobble. What would they do on holiday if they could actually speak to people in their own language instead of pointing, shouting and asking where the chips are?