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?

Put aside what you think would be 'good' for children and think about some children

1. Very able but disaffected boy who comes from a primary that does not teach MFL. He has ADHD. Is doing English, Eng Lit, Maths, Double Sci, Geog, Pe, and Design Tech at GCSE. Will have to give up Pe or DT to do MFL - his 2 favourites. No choice as others will be compulsory. He hated MFL at KS3- despite having a fab teacher, and the only thing that kept him in the room was the teacher. His parents think it is a waste of time as well. He wants to be a PE teacher and sees no relevance in MFL. He is on track to achieve 6 A grades and 2 Bs at GCSE. What is gained by makng him choose MFL?
2. Very able hard- working boy, wants to do medicine. Doing Eng, Eng Lit, Maths, Additional Maths, 3 Sciences, History, Computer Science and PE. As above hates MFL, sees no relevance, parents view is he can pick it up if he wishes later on- one a GP, the other a teacher. Will achieve all A* s or A grades next summer. What is to be gained by makng him study MFL and give up Computer Science or PE at GCSE which he really enjoys?
3. Asylum seeker student arrived in Y9 from Eastern Europe, no English or language other than his own which is not allowable as GCSE by Government. Plus mild AEN. Very little background of any formal education. Father has severe mental health problems. Neither parents speak English. Is now Y11. Doing Eng, Eng Lit, Maths, Catering, Design Tech, Geography at GCSE, plus BTEC Science, BTEC construction. Will achieve 2GCSEs at Grade C (maximum), rest at E and F. BTEC will achieve two C grade equivalents. Has a place on a Construction apprenticeship. What would be achieved by makng him study MFL at GCSE? It would have had to replace one of the two he will possibly achieve C grades in and would have been almost impossible for him to achieve a grade in.

I could go on and on. All of our students can choose to study 2 MFL at GCSE. We have 180 students in a year group (approx). We have one group of 25 at GCSE doing Spanish this year and one group of 16 doing French. There are two larger groups next year. We are an Outstanding school.

However, we will not be an Outstanding school in the future unless we force every student to study an MFL at GCSE - whether they want to or whether it is appropriate for them.

How can that be right?

1. Lots could be gained. All of the arguments about why it is good to learn a language apply here. Why is the student only doing 8 GCSEs? The timetable should allow for 9, but still, just because he sees no relevance doesn't mean there is none. His chance of getting onto a good university course may well be reliant on an MFL GCSE, and won't depend on PE or DT.

1. Same as above. Neither Computer Science nor PE are core subjects, he will have to choose which extra he prefers. Many schools don't offer CS.

1. I strongly believe that all languages should count towards the MFL component. This is a clear reason why - this student could get a really solid GCSE grade here.

My concern is for schools like ours which has a very high % of low achievers. The focus for these children is to get them the qualifications in English and maths that they need to make progress in their lives- adding a MFL will just make that an even harder task.

Op - I'm not persuaded by any of your examples at all. Medicine is one of the most competitive university courses, and the boy you speak of would be far better served by doing a MFL rather than a less traditionally academic subject like PE, especially as he's doing PE as part of the National Curriculum anyway. Your school will be doing this boy a great disservice if you allow him to take two subjects that are perceived as less academic if he really does want to do medicine.
If the first child you mention is as able as you say then taking an extra GCSE should be very manageable for him - let him do 9 instead of 8. Many children think some of their GCSE options are pointless and a waste of time - it doesn't mean that they or their parents are right.
Your third example is clearly a highly complex case. Agree with Elsa that this boy would be far better served if the government broadened the sweep of languages [so a greater investment in languages rather than less]. But it doesn't look as if he's well served by his choices anyway - why is he doing six GCSEs if he's only going to get two Cs anyway. He'd do better to do a reduced number and get stronger grades.

ElsasComplex- you don't seem to have a clue.

1. He will take PE A Level plus Biology and Chemistry. No university would ask for MFL at GCSE to do a Sports Science degree. He already has a link to a local uni who are very interested in him. They have suggested PE, Biology and Chemistry and are happy with his GCSEs. He also does PSHCE and Core PE which fill up the rest of his timetable.
2. Why will he have to choose? Who says MFL is better than Computer Science or PE?
3. It doesn't matter what you believe, the government thinks differently. And we could not teach him his own language to examination standard - no one else speaks it in the school. He speaks it but can not write it.

You don't actually answer the questions- none of the 4.

SallyMcGally - you are wrong. Universities are happy with GCSE PE for medicine. They want Eng, Maths, 3 Sciences and the rest can be anything but A*/A grades are important. My best friend is an admissions tutor on a medicine course - one of the best in the country. Quite alot of GCSE PE is biology and chemistry based- movement, muscles, circulation, health, psychology.

Thefirst student does a extra GCSE in his own time at college - in Music. He could not fit it in his timetable at school.

The third one is doing 6 GCSEs because the government now only allow 2 BTECs to count and schools are punished in league tales if they allow students to do more.

It is all part of the same agenda- force all students down a narrow, academic route in the knowledge that many will become disengaged and achieve poorly. The government will then use this as a way of introducing two grades of school - academic schools which can be graded as outstanding and are suitale for a narrow band of students and those who do what is right for their students in terms of a broad curriculum offer- which can not be graded outstanding and will be labelled non-academic.

It is socially divisive and will result in something that is a grammar and secondary modern system again by any other name.

BertrandRussell my children attend a school in France which is probably very similar to the one where you teach (it's classified as being among the most deprived schools in the country, because of high levels of social and
material deprivation in the catchment). Nevertheless, all children study at least one MFL and the great majority study two (a handful of kids who start a vocational course in Y10 are allowed to drop their second MFL, but this affects only 2-3% of students).

The difference is of course that they don't have GCSEs to pass or fail - the only MFL tests taken before age 18 are certificates for non-native speakers linked to the European common framework for languages, and these are not compulsory. So it's much less all-or-nothing than the UK system.

lulu you appear to be very fond of telling people who disagree with you that they 'haven't got a clue'. What Elsa says is actually very sensible.

A number of universities have issued guidance about the subjects seen as 'facilitating' - i.e. the ones that they want to see represented - which includes classical and modern languages. They also list the ones that they say should be considered as the 'fourth' option (at 'A' level) because they are perceived as 'softer' - these include PE/ Sports Studies. The same attitudes govern the ways in which they perceive GCSE choices. www.studentladder.co.uk/Soft-Subjects/soft-subjects.html
Elsa's comment about the first student was that a 'good' university 'may well' want a language over PE. This is true. She didn't say it was definitely the case. It does seem very unusual that he is already getting such guidance from universities at the age of 14/15 - this usually happens in year 12.

Well, if I don't have a clue and it doesn't matter what I believe, I'm not needed on this thread.

(Head of MFL in 3 schools so far - possibly do have some sort of a clue, but whatever you think).

Cross post - I'm not wrong. I didn't say that you wouldn't be considered for Medicine if you did PE. I said that for one of the most competitive degree courses you would be far better placed to do subjects that are perceived as more academic rather than less academic. This boy is going to be competing against the brightest kids in the country. He is giving himself a much better chance if he does a language rather than PE in the list that you give. The science that is covered in the PE GCSE is covered in the other three sciences he's doing anyway. And I really don't think that expecting children to do one language at GCSE is forcing them down a 'narrow academic route' and recreating the grammar school/ secondary modern divide. That division would be much more likely if languages were kept as the preserve of the grammar school child, rather than being expected of everyone.

There seems to be an odd utilitarian view of education that suggests that something is only worth studying if it will be directly useful to that student later in life. Hence we get kids moaning about learning Shakespeare or algebra.

The purpose of state education is, however, IMO, to turn out well-rounded individuals with a range of skills, with as many doors open to them as possible.

So well-rounded means an appreciation of Shakespeare. Doors open to them means an understanding of algebra that will enable further study of mathematics or science. A range of skills means being able to think logically, formulate coherent arguments and have some understanding of our place in the world - the humanities and sciences. But we are also a small island on a large planet. Learning an MFL is not just about learning to communicate in and understand a different language, it's about appreciating a different culture and understanding that other countries do things differently to us, from the language they speak, to the food they eat, to their cultural monuments, books and films.

MFL is possibly poorly taught, and I understand that some parents of children who really struggle at school who think that this time would be better spent concentrating on the core subjects or learning practical skills. However for parents of the academically able, there should be no complaints about an effort to educate your child to become a decent citizen. How can you have any sense of cultural identity if you have no idea of any other than your own?

Worth bearing in mind, also, that as far as Humanities degrees are concerned the only UK university that actually specifies a GCSE requirement beyond Maths and English is UCL who require - not science - but a Modern Foreign Language.

I fear Lulu is right about the real agenda. Also a narrow academic curriculum is cheaper to deliver.
Sally I think you are riight to point out there are subjects and subjects. However the link you posted concentrates on advanced qualifications rather than GCSE. In both of the cases discussed the students had at least 5 facilitating subjects available for A level choices in addition to subjects expressing their interests. This seems a good mix. Indeed the link goes on to highlight the need for specialist arts qualifications to be pursued for entry to arts courses. MFL requirement would narrow options considerably for students with an interest in the arts wishing to keep options open at GCSE.

He is going to do Sports Science to be a PE teacher! Of course they are happy for him to have GCSE PE and value the subject.

It is very common now for schools to build links with universities much earlier than Y12. We have students in Y11 and 10 who have been to 3 day visits to universities, as well as programmes for very able students working with university departments on specific projects.

I have no problem with anyone who is well-informed, I do have a problem with ill-informed people imposing education decisions on all children with no idea or concern of the consequences for all children.

Just saying you want all children to do MFL at GCSE does not answer any of my questions about the appropriateness of the decision. You don't have to engage in the discussion but if you do, please do it from an informed point of view rather than just stating ill-informed views as facts.

Neither of you have actually answered of the questions I asked.

When I was 14 I wanted to own an animal sanctuary
At 15 I wanted to be a vet
When I was 16, I considered architecture
At 17, I was torn between fine arts and languages at university

It wasn't until I was in my 20s that I decided to teach.

It is a very rare y9 indeed who knows their future path so clearly that it is wise to rule out swathes of curriculum content in its entirety, and a poor advisory team who would suggest they do so.

Elsa - if you are or have been Head of MFL, you must recognise the facts in wha I am saying????? You seem to know little about the current schools' curriculum, proposed changes, the basis of university offers, or school staffing. I say that because your argument is simply well they will have to do it and drop something else and takes no account of the other facts I have mentioned.

1. You say many schools don't offer Computer Science - it is now compulsory for all children and in basket 2 of Progress 8. It is another subject imposed with no thinking about staff training or the implications.
2. Schools do not have teachers trained to teach any language a student might arrive in the school speaking.
3. The boy is working towards a Sports Science degree. Of course the university rate GCSE PE.
4. The boy who wants to do medicine will have mainly A* grades in Maths, Additional Maths, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, History, English, English Literature, Computer Science and PE. He will do 3 Sciences and Maths at A level. He will get a place to do Medicine. He is already doing appropriate voluntay work, will do a related Extended Project, will spend a summer in Africa working in a village hospital. Not having GCSE French will be irrelevant.
5. No one is suggesting children should not be offered MFL as a choice.

The fact remains most children do not choose MFL, do not enjoy MFL and do not see the relevance in it. I understand that you do. I do. I did two MFL GCSEs. I loved it. But I would not i pose it on any student.

I would lve you to explain to me why it ahould be forced on all children? Why is has more value than Technology subjects? Art? Music? PE? I would also like you to answer the question about why a currently Outstanding school will no longer be able to be Outstanding unless all children study MFL to GCSE level- even if they hate it?

We have answered your questions - we both referred specifically to the three cases that you described.
It's not, actually, always self-evident that universities want GCSEs in the subjects that the students apply to do - if you're studying Law, for example, you are warned off doing Law at school because it's another subject perceived as 'soft.' 'Good' university courses (which is what Elsa said) are much more likely to look favourably upon a set of GCSE results that includes a language.

Neither Elsa nor I have said that we want 'all' students to do a MFL. In fact earlier on the thread I've said that I welcome student choice, but that I don't see why people get so enraged about a requirement to do a language rather than a science, for instance.

I said that the link I posted was about 'A' level subjects rather than GCSEs, but it is true that these attitudes colour perceptions of both qualifications. I also said that I was not claiming that the second boy would automatically rule himself out by doing PE, but that he would give himself a much better chance by offering a language, given that he will be competing with the brightest children in the country.

noble has given you a very eloquent account, however, of why more children should be doing languages.

Loafline You cannot learn a language properly without grammar and vocabulary. It's no different to learning maths or a science, start with the basics, proceed from the known to the unknown.

I learnt English without paying attention to any lessons on grammar and vocabulary there might have been at school. (To the best of my recollection there weren't many such lessons.) Among the factors that may have helped with my competence were that it was my first language, it was the first language of both my parents, and that almost everyone I met spoke it in my presence, even when it wasn't their first language.

In contrast, I'd bet that the vast majority of people whose only contact with a foreign language has been in a classroom would be unable to conduct a five minute conversation in it five years after they've left school. Their competence is below that of a four-year-old for whom it is a first language. (Competence at speaking, they might beat the four-year-old at reading.)

Some of the disagreement in this thread comes from conflating the idea of "learning a language" with getting a GCSE in it. They are two different things.

Sally - neither of you have answered the question about why an Oustanding school will no longer be able to be outstanding unless it forces every student to do GCSE MFL.

More children are doing MFL. Forcing all of them to do it will not help. The teahing of MFL is riddled with problems and obstacles and the government is doing nothing to overcome them; just saying all children will have to study them and not caring what that will mean for those children. It needs a huge injection if funding over many years from aged 5 onwards. The infrastructure surrounding MFL teaching has been dismantled ad barely exists. Many universities no lnger offer MFL courses. Most primary schools have no MFL teacher. Many children are uninterested in it. Just saying all do it from 11-16 won't make it successful.

Two of the universities I am referring to are Durham and Newcastle - both pretty 'good' ones I think.

Surely the question, in that case, is why are any subjects compulsory? Should any be? Where do we draw the line? Why are sciences and humanities above the line for you?

OP - as a matter of interest, why aren't you just as furious about kids having to do science?
I actually am in agreement with you about wanting children to be able to choose. I wouldn't mind them not doing a language at GCSE, but would welcome them having to do some kind of unexamined language learning up until 16. In my view it is as important as PE or RE. I do think that the reality is that we need to bear in mind the subjects universities want to see in a GCSE list though.
My main problem on this thread is that the outrage over MFLs far outweighs the outrage over the other compulsory subjects. I don't see why the misery of PE (as so many experience it) has to be inflicted on so many students - why can't we have a system whereby children can have a card stamped at a local sports centre to show that they are engaging in regular physical activity rather than bloody cross-country or rugby twice a week?
Why should children who know that they are going to follow a Humanities path be forced to take science GCSEs?
The outrage over languages fuels a widespread attitude that we don't need to bother with them because everyone else speaks English (which is both arrogant and extremely limited), and which is an attitude that we should be seeking to correct rather than perpetuate.

I've just looked a the Tory manifesto - it says that a school can't be ranked as 'outstanding' if it refuses to teach these core subjects. I absolutely agree with that - how could a secondary school be outstanding if it didn't teach Maths/ English/ Science/ History-Geography and Languages?
It does say that there's a requirement for children to take these as GCSEs, but there's a requirement at the moment for children to do Maths and English etc and not all children do, because not all children can, so the reality may be that there's a little more flexibility there.
But the outstanding criterion is linked to whether there's a refusal to teach them - that's quite different.

Sally I agree that MFL should have at least the same status as compulsory PE and RE and I think your idea for a PE exemption if attending a sport regularly is a good one.
I have already outlined my doubts about MFL being a broadening facilitating subject at GCSE because it limits options for arts students.
However as an accountant I found graduates without English A level were at a distinct disadvantage. I suspect this is the case for many maths / science careers requiring strong communication skills. Therefore I think for A level options MFL is subsidiary to English and that does not leave much scope for Maths / Science students to pursue it beyond GCSE. This is a personal rather than an educationalist's view.

Neither of you are prepared to answer the question are you?

Sally- the government announced this week all students would have to study MFL to GCSE level for a school to be able to be awarded the 'highest grades' bu Ofsted, as it is plural, it could mean Good and Outstanding actually. Their policy has changed even from theirmanifesto. All schools do teach the subjects. We don't force students to take them to examination level.

Ebacc subjects have been increasing since the government introduced the idea it would like children to study them. Schools have no problem with that. Many if not most students see the value of Humanities subjects and want to choose them. They all see the value of English, Maths and Science. However, MFL has l g been the subject students do not value, see the relevance of to life or education and it is the Ebacc subject that has increased least. The goverment is now forcing this. If you actually read my posts throughout the thread, you would have seen that I think all students should have access to these subjects- they should not be forced to study them. The difference with MFL is they have not chosen it and most do not show any inclination to. They do, on the other hand love Technology, Art and PE at GCSE and numbers are healthy. If they are forced into MFL at the expense of these subjects, I can not see any rational reason for doing so.

You are lookng for holes in what I am saying as if I am lying and need to be checked up on. I am not. I am genuinely asking the questions you still have not answered.

When I was at school everyone had to do French to GCSE in our school. It was terrible. Most of my friends would not have chosen it and we were really clever. It was renowned as the lessons where people misbehaved. The less able students hated it and resented having to do it instead of subjects they would have liked to do. Nothing has changed. I liked it but even now, many of the students in the outstading school in which I teach, hate it and do not consider it. However, they won't attend an outstanding school once we force them to do it- because they will achieve poor results and we will lose our oustanding status anyway.

Our MFL dept are incredibly frustrated by the announcement. Forcing children to study a language at GCSE is guaranteed to put them off for life.

The students see it as difficult, boring and unnecessary, irrelevant to their lives. That is because on a day to day basis, it is all of those things - lots of rote learnng, memory tests, complex grammar(as they see it) which they find dull and a struggle to learn very basic things - food, past-times etc- which they never hear anywhere else, or use again. I have never used my GCSE German ever again. I use pidgin French in France but when I think of the years I studied French ( from agaed 8-16) it seems most of it was wasted in terms of what I can say. However, as someone who teaches English, I see both languages in word roots etc.