That £4m on Latin lessons should be spent on a modern foreign language

[newnortherner111]

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/latin-state-schools-england-williamson-b1894202.html

Latest idea from the Education Secretary. Given that the Prime Minister has been in a Catholic church at least once, did he not tell Gavin Williamson that the Catholic Mass is usually in the local language now, and has been for over 50 years?

Encouraging learning Spanish for example would be much better and actually have a use in real life.

I chose Latin as a second foreign language at school on the suggestion of the teacher who assured me it would help me learn more languages (‘other’ languages - like the assumption being Latin is a gateway language rather than an end in itself).

I always felt in hindsight that what would have -helped me learn more languages- would have been -learning those languages-.

The alternative to Latin would have been two years of French. Since there aren’t many opportunities to use it, I’m unable to remember any of the Latin now (apart from ‘ego sum....’). Interesting learning about Pompei etc. but not really very useful.

@lazylinguist

Can anyone who actually knows what they're talking about tell me specifically why they believe that Latin provides more help towards learning other modern languages (which are actually spoken) than another modern language would?

If someone put you in charge of getting a bunch of, say, 8yo or 11 yo kids to a really pretty decent level of comprehension, speaking and writing in French, for example, would your first thought be "I know, let's teach them Latin!"? And if they then took up Spanish later, would you really think that their Latin declensions and 'Caecilius est in horto' etc would be more help with that than the French they had learned? It really, really wouldn't.

All the different declensions etc would be more help in learning German really, certainly not much use in learning French. And actually learning German requires no prior knowledge of Latin declensions. They are hard no matter which language you encounter first.

Latin is hugely useful when learning any European-based language. It forms the basis of so many words and can be used to deduce translations when working with a language you don't know.

Considering how most students are required to take a MFL and come out of school still only able to speak English, I think Latin at least would help people linguistically!

@MooseBreath

Latin is hugely useful when learning any European-based language. It forms the basis of so many words and can be used to deduce translations when working with a language you don't know.

Considering how most students are required to take a MFL and come out of school still only able to speak English, I think Latin at least would help people linguistically!

Well, if you look at English, you have the dual origins of words: old Germanic and old Latin/Romance. By your logic, we might as well be teaching pupils old Germanic languages! I think English and French and German give a good basis for a lot of the modern European languages, without Latin (or old English/Germanic).

Latin is hugely useful when learning any European-based language

German, Swedish, Norwegian, Greek.... ??

How about learning a lot of English better, as it contains so many words from so many different sources?

@Getawaywithit

Yes. I am 100% sure that sport does not get you into elite universities. Not even rowing. They're not interested in non-academic pursuits unless they contribute directly to your degree. Don't even bother wasting personal statement space

DofE = no
violin = no
piano = no
saxophone = no
multiple sports = no
anything that had to be facilitated by your parents' time and money = no

Academic stuff = yes
subject stuff = yes

Latin is hugely useful when learning any European-based language. It forms the basis of so many words and can be used to deduce translations when working with a language you don't know.

Why would Latin be more help in learning Spanish than Italian or French would? And why would Latin be particularly useful for learning German or Swedish for example? I teach French, German and Spanish (the former two for 25 years). I've taught them to kids who did Latin and kids who didn't. There is no noticeable difference in their ability to translate words. The only real difference is that the Latin learners tend to be a bit ahead with grammar, because they get into the hard stuff more quickly in Latin because vocab and grammar are all there is.

Exactly what I was going to say, ErrolTheDragon. With my knowledge of English, which has many words derived from Latin, I can already figure out a lot of words in French, Spanish and Italian, so Latin really isn't a necessary prerequisite for this. For this same reason I could make out much of the text that was given in the link above: www.clc.cambridgescp.com/sites/www.cambridgescp.com/files/legacy_root_files/singles/expall2/expnew.html?fn=ets1uk0&mn=1627759994

Considering how most students are required to take a MFL and come out of school still only able to speak English, I think Latin at least would help people linguistically!

This is daft. You believe they would come out of school more proficient in speaking a modern foreign language by studying a different, dead language which they don't ever speak?! Nope. They come out of school unable to speak French/Spanish etc because they don't get enough lesson time, and because the nature of the MFL curriculum and exams in England does not promote mastery of the spoken language. Studying Latin grammar and texts absolutely categorically does not help you gain oral fluency in a modern language!

From that linked text I understood:

is; in; sitting; atrium; working; writing; street; kitchen; sleeping; enters; looks around; stands; gets up; irritated; pest; shouts; exits.

That's without having studied any Latin, only English and some basic French. Whilst I'm sure studying Latin would be useful for learning other Romance languages, I'm still not sure that the time, effort and money required - which would have to be deducted from somewhere else - should make it a priority whilst children are still leaving school with such poor standards of English and MFL. lazylinguist is absolutely right, not enough hours go into teaching MFL and in promoting the spoken language, and we start too late. Changing this is what will really help with language learning.

vocab and grammar are all there is.

There really would be less point in learning Latin if that were true. As a classics prof, I'd say that Latin does help with understanding certain types of linguistic structure and getting a jump on vocabulary of the European romance languages, but it's also about engaging with fantastic literature - something that in my experience you can do quite a bit sooner with Latin than with the modern languages just because there isn't the pressure to learn how to ask for the loo or listen to directions for how to get to the station or whatever. (I'm not Mary Beard, BTW, but this is pretty much her line and I agree with her.) It's not for everyone, but I think everyone should have the opportunity for that cultural enrichment. My mum taught Latin in a London state school and when she died last year, I was touched by the tributes to her that people sent me, saying how valuable Latin had been to them (in all sorts of different ways that have been suggested upthread). 4 m out of the 58 billion of the dept of education's budget doesn't seem that much to me.

Well, I'd be all for teaching world literature in translation in schools. No need to learn a dead language to engage with fabulous literature - you could teach kids about languages well beyond Europe, too, and really make an asset of multilingual kids whose home languages don't carry much cultural capital. There are some fabulous initiatives in this line now that could use those four million quid to much better ends IMO.

There really would be less point in learning Latin if that were true. As a classics prof, I'd say that Latin does help with understanding certain types of linguistic structure and getting a jump on vocabulary of the European romance languages, but it's also about engaging with fantastic literature

It's hard enough to engage many secondary school pupils with much literature that's very modern, or a hundred years old! I have very bad memories of slogging through Sallust's Jugurthine War...

Also...how would Latin help you get a jump on Spanish vocabulary more than French would (or vice versa)? I've asked this one a few times, but nobody seems to have an answer!

Besides, for most people, learning to ask for a beer, what time the next train is, or where to find the loo is not a tedious thing you have to muck about with instead of reading Proust. It's one of the main points of learning a language, and one you're much more likely to get to use!

Many thanks for the correction squid, I didn't fact check, it was late and my recollections were 'tainted'. But even if it's all Greek, the use of sympathy and empathy are in common, current usage in the English Language, often incorrectly interchangeably because they mean different, albeit [OE], similar 'feelings'.

So maybe offering a combined Latin/Greek curriculum might be quite a good idea, because it might also provide inspiration for other academic disciplines too.

Well, I'd be all for teaching world literature in translation in schools.

I wonder what people think the Bible and Koran are ....

Besides, for most people, learning to ask for a beer, what time the next train is, or where to find the loo is not

something they have any intention of doing if they're English anyway.

I did Latin to A-level at a state comprehensive. I enjoyed it (mostly...) I learned French from 11, and st 13, we could choose Latin or German as a second foreign language - I took Latin, because I figured it would be easier to pick up German outside of school (and I have since done German to AS level at evening classes.)

Having Latin did mean I picked up the concept of different cases quicker than the rest of the class when I later learned German. It means I can often get the gist of Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. I have a pretty large English vocabulary compared many others I know. Latin has helped with all that, but then so did coming from a family which looked up the etymology of words a lot and read a lot. I now work in IT - but I don't know that I learnt logic from Latin; I enjoyed Latin partly because my mind can be very logical. (My A-level Latin teacher slso taught computer studies.)

I think Latin is worth studying, but I don't think it's essential. I'm glad it's still being taught in state schools, but I wouldn't make it a priority over other subjects. People can learn about grammar in modern languages (even English, let alone foreign languages.) They can learn about logic without Latin. You don't need Latin as a background to sciences (arguably German US more sensible for chemists, with Natrium and Kalium making more sense to the periodic table than sodium and potassium.) Having a background in it can make it easier to pick some things up, but you can do it without, there's always more than one way.

This has far more to do with Boris's own background and pandering to the sort of voter who wants "traditional values" and all that sort of thing. More Latin isn't a bad thing, but it's definitely not where education funding should be getting prioritised, nor the first issue that needs sorting out.

Extra languages, whether Latin, Greek or an extra MFL, were almost always only offered to top sets, so Latin has never been a subject that was universally available. Making it more available is partly to counter that, but it is mostly ideological, rather than practical or necessary.

something they have any intention of doing if they're English anyway.

Sadly true. Still more likely than them using Latin for anything except maybe recognising the root of the occasional unfamiliar word, with which French or Spanish (or possibly German) would help them just as effectively. Or doing the Times crossword.

My kids state school teaches Latin. Have to say I wonder what the benefit of it is.

DH did a law degree and commented on hearing this news that if he’d already had a basic grasp of Latin on starting the course it would have helped him enormously!

I imagine the same could be said of medicine and veterinary studies, as well as other languages.

@Darbs76

My kids state school teaches Latin. Have to say I wonder what the benefit of it is.

Plenty of examples on this thread.

I did 5 years of Latin at school - can’t remember a thing. Why are state schools forced to ape private schools? A better solution would be to use the money to make class sizes smaller, buy back sports fields (sold off by the tories), give ALL children exciting extra-curricular activities. Sod Latin.

@CaveMum

DH did a law degree and commented on hearing this news that if he’d already had a basic grasp of Latin on starting the course it would have helped him enormously!

I imagine the same could be said of medicine and veterinary studies, as well as other languages.

Isn't there a move to remove as much Latin as possible from the law moving forwards ?

I’ve not read the whole thread and I reckon it’s already been mentioned but why does MFL start at secondary. Surely it would be much more unlawful from year 1/yr 3?