Not to understand why primary children aren't fluent in English after a year

[Claraetal]

I don't understand why primary school aged children, who arrive in reception not being able to speak English, are still considered as "English as Second Language" (ESL) for pretty much their whole time in primary school as far as I can tell. The teachers talk about them as if not being to speak, read, write English perfectly is a permanent state and I don't get it. Surely by year 1 they should be at the same level as everyone else. Let me try to explain why I am not insane... :)

I myself was moved to France with my parents as an 8 year old for a year. My parents are English and English speaking as were all of my friends before I moved. I was sent to an entirely French school at the start of the school year. It was a little tough but by Christmas I could speak French and some time between then and the end of the school year I was pretty much indistinguishable from the other kids.

As another and maybe better example, I spent some time in Denmark this year. There I spoke to English speaking families whose primary school aged kids had been sent to normal Danish language schools. They said the same thing. That is that after 6 months or so their children were pretty much fluent and after a year they couldn't really be told apart from their class mates. In these cases their parents couldn't speak a word of Danish on arrival and were still pretty terrible after a year.

I get it if the class or school doesn't have English as the majority language. In that case you are lacking the total immersion effect. But I am talking about our local schools where English is the only language commonly heard in the playground. I don't buy the story that it is because their parents don't speak English or that they don't speak English at home as that was exactly the same for me with French and also for all the ex-pat families in Denmark.

So what is going on?

English (or whever language is taught at school) is not always the second lamguage for a child born to foreign parent(s). My DD was born here, her accent and vocabulary are that of native speaker. The mistakes she makes in English are too that of a native speaker both in writing and in speaking. My mother tongue is definitely a second language for her. I speak it exclusively at home but she’s been in part-time childcare since she was 9 months and I think that has made the difference. Her dad is English but she doesn’t see him often enough (regularly but rarely if you like) for him to have much impact on her language.

Her friend’s parents are both from my country and have more more children (I just have DD). They all speak the language at home and her friend’s English is not as good. It really depends!

I live abroad. My children speak English as a first language at home but they make mistakes that other natives wouldn't make, for example my 5 year old recently said "look how many water I have!" Their second language is much stronger. So I agree to an extent but my experience of teaching in the USA was that many esl children's parents couldn't read or write in Spanish and often their parents made grammatical mistakes in their speech. So they were not entering English on a level playing field and therefore needed support even in high school. This is very different to your experience or my children. So as others said it very depends on the child and the family situation.

Scoopofchaff I don't think someone speaking English to native level would use the phrase "where parents don't actively hide them from hearing and speaking English out of school". They would probably use the verb "prevent". I think this kind of illustrates our point.

Given that I am English born and bred, having lived my entire life here except for one year in France, I think you just called me an idiot.

It generally taked 5 years for someone to acquire English to native speaker standard

You're absolutely kidding yourself. Your accent alone would have made you stand out like a sore thumb, no matter how good your language skills were.

Actually children often mimic what they hear, up to as late as 17 it's possible to speak a foreign language with a local accent. I taught a 9 year old Ukrainian girl in London that spoke English like a native after only 8 months. Two of my children were 8 when they first learned Spanish and Portuguese respectively. They do not have foreign accents. Confirmed by natives, mostly teachers who often suprised to learn the children are not natives. I think it depends on the level of immersion.

My daughter started reception in a Welsh speaking school. She couldn't speak a word of it and I don't speak it at home either.

She was fluent within a year and could read and write both English and Welsh by year 4.

All kids are different so difficult to give a reason why others don't become fluent.

Claraetal if you read my post again, I was careful to emphasize that I wasn't being intentionally rude. I was making a linguistic point. I wasn't commenting on your intellect.

There has been a lot of research done on this. Check out Jim Cummins from University of Toronto. It can be quite deceptive because children learning in their second language may have basic fluency and understand everyday interactions, but this is quite different from processing academic language and complex thoughts in their second language. Their vocabulary will also be more limited than first language speakers. It generally takes many years for these kids to catch up to their first language peers. They might have excellent math skills, but have difficulty with word problems. They may not understand the nuances in a literary text or have difficulty expressing complex thoughts orally or in writing. It affects them across the curriculum as language is an integral part of all subject areas.

Thanks Dogdogcat! It must depend crucially on the age they are when they move country too.

Once you add up all the personal stories on this thread you get an amazing amount of information on the topic too! I now have feel I have a pretty good picture of what happens when you move country with a small child.

The clue is in the name. No matter how fluent you become in your second language, it’s always your second language. ESL kids are statistically at a disadvantage to those for whom English is their mother tongue.

The clue is in the name. No matter how fluent you become in your second language, it’s always your second language.

Lots of people disagree with this statement. It is clearly true in some circumstances but it seems not to be true in lots of others.

Kolo - that depends thoroughly. A child with a second mother tongue can be absolutely fluent with no difference to a monolingual British child. DD is one, born here, never heard English at home, no TV, no books but went to nursery from 9 months and we went out to baby groups etc before.

I still do not talk English to her unless I am in a mainly English speaking group and it is important for the rest as well or I help her with homework.

On the other hand, I am in the UK now for 18 years, I recently passed the English test required for citizenship and speak 75% English during my work day. I will never be as correct as a native speaker, I still make stupid grammar mistakes and lots of vocabulary is missing despite me reading nearly only in English for pleasure.

The label “EAL” is confusing and especially when parent view schools can give a totally incorrect impression.