Moving the kids to school in Paris to learn French

[Dvushka]

(Posting here b/c I'm not sure if this question is for this topic or specialised primary educ.)

I have 2 dds, one in Reception and the other in Year 2. We've always been big on having them learn languages - afterschool clubs in French and Chinese once a week - but we realise that they will never truly become fluent unless we immerse them.
So we're planning to go to Paris for at least 7 months if not the next year as well (we'll see how it goes). I've already found a place for Y2 dd at EAB Monceau in the immersion programme - they'll take her in January. My 4yr old would have to go to a local maternalle (if one is available). Has anyone done this before and/or have any knowledge of EAB or other schools in the 8th or 17th arr.? Do you think they will speak fluently after a year and a half and then keep it up after they move back to London? (They would at least have an afterschool French speaking nanny once or twice a week if not go to the Lycee.) It's a sacrifice for us but I just think it's less disruptive to move over now before the demands of KS2 really kick in and we start preparing for the move to secondary school.

Thank you cory, that's exactly how we feel. I'm sure the kids will get a better feel for living in another culture and we hope they will continue to use their French as adults. Hopefully they will see that learning languages is fun as well. I'm not concerned about moving them out of school since they are only 4 and 6.5. I'm surprised at the number of people replying that it is terrible to take them away from their friends and it's disruptive to their education here. We would see it as a shame if they didn't experience other cultures/languages directly - if we were too afraid to try.

I appreciate all the reasoned responses wrt staying longer in France and making a careful effort to have them retain the language in future. I know it will be worth it and they will benefit from being immersed in a different culture (not just language).

Cory - I'm another one who think it sounds like fun.

As I said earlier ( though was shouted down ), I think we Brits are far too averse to doing things differently.

Any suggestion that children be taken out of the normal pattern - be it starting school late, home educating, giving children a gap year etc are met with horror.

Living among different peoples and cultures is completely life enhancing. Learning their languages is an integral part of that.
To me this could be such a positive thing, and I'd certainly approach it as such, rather than immediately call it 'nuts' or a waste of time.

IMO your originsl timescale is just too short a time to go for. 1.5/2 years would be much better than 7 months! Plus I'm still interested why EAB (although it's a lovely, very respected school).

Au pairs/nannies do work btw (having been a fairly successful English speaking governess) but only if they never use the 'majority' language - to an extent that the children might believe they don't speak it - and they're genuinely committed to the goal of teaching that language effectively full time, so lots of word games, reading allowed, songs with actions, finding other children to do playdates with. Finding that kind of person is difficult. A student looking for babysitting won't have the same level of knowledge, commitment or get up and go as someone who makes a career out of it. Plus you need to start young and have a few hours every day doing it.

I agree getting into the Lycee is London is next to impossible even if you're French! Your best bet is coming from a French school. Unfortunately EAB probably wouldn't cut it for lycee admission, state school would give you a much higher chance.

Re: the responses you did ask in your original post about schools in the 8th/17th and whether they'd be fluent enough to keep it up. The answer to that second questions is basically no as you've been told in various ways. Your OP was just unfortunately phrased as a focus on the language and not much on the other benefits, which certainly do exist and you're well aware of them. There just happen to be significant drawbacks too.

Dvushka i 've just came back and read this thread and i see that you have 2 dcs. When i posted yesterday i kept writing 'your dd'. My apologies.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that it would be a good experience. Most posters live abroad so can testify first-hand to the benefits from integrating different cultures (and the disadvantages but that's another thread!)

As frakkin says - your OP was orientated towards learning French, NOT towards experiencing France. I don't think posters have been rude, but spoken honestly about their/their DC's language learning experience.

I love another posters sponge analogy - children soak up languages but one squeeze and it all runs out. As most posters have said - language learning needs more time than a few months.

My brother, his Spanish wife ant theri two Spanish speaking children moved to Englland when the children were 5 and 9. They are now 10 and 14, have been to English schools and I think have only spoken perfect English for the last year or so. And they still speak with marked accents - there is no way you would mistake them for native speakers.

And despite the fact that Spanish is the language they speak at home, they are now no longer perfect Spanish speakers. Nearly perfect, of course, but their mother says that they no longer speak Spanish like native speakers either.

So I really don't think 7 months immersion will produve bilingual children, no. And even if it does, the bilingualism won't 'stick" without loads of work when you get home. ANd that depends on so many factors, not least of which, the willingness of the dcs to play ball!

I think that 7 months are better than nothing.
However I agree that it can only be disruptive for your children at that age.
Ds was in yr1 when we left the UK to move back to Italy and was really sad to leave his friends.

I also agree that it takes longer to be fluent in a language.
Our dc were born in the UK but we spoke Italian at home. They learnt English at nursery and from day to day life. They were fluent, with lovely devonian accent, but not bilingual. ANd their Italian was weird too.
We got back to Italy nearly 3 yrs go and of course they are not as fluent as they used to be. And their accent is not devonian anymore

Still, they speak english much better than the average italian!

SO are we saying that any language competence short of perfect accent/can be mistaken for natives after 7 months is wasted? Or that there are no families who are capable of maintaining an interest in a language after they have moved from the country. I am glad my parents never knew this, or I wouldn't be here typing on Mumsnet

I did not go on to develop my French (6 weeks at a boarding school in Cannes being the limit of my immersion) to a point where I can be mistaken for a native. But I can enjoy a French film, read a French newspaper and draw on the work of French scholars for my writings. Is this not valuable enough in itself without my needing to be mistaken for a native speaker?

I do myself have fully bilingual children so I know the work involved in that. But am still totally at the concept that anything less than that would be wasted. Where I grew up a working knowledge of the main European languages was simply the hallmark of an educated person, the foundation you should have to get to grips with the world around you. Some people went on and became bilingual, others did not. But that was not considered the be all and end all of language learning.

The original post though clearly stated that the intention was to move purely to immerse the children in French to ensure future fluency. Not for work, not as a family adventure, not to embrace the culture and a love of language - but to make them fluent in French.

As has been pointed out over and over in the thread, this WILL NOT work. But OP is only interested in engaging with posters who agree with her. It will cause unnecessary disruption - especially for a 4 yo who would shortly start Primary in UK, but would wait til age 6 in France.

I'm sure it would be a good experience, though not without it's challenges and definitely NOT a waste - but the OP really needs to think about her motivation for doing this, or she is setting herself up for a big disappointment.

No, I think we are engaging with the OP in its original terms ("truly become fluent... Do you think they will speak fluently after a year and a half and then keep it up?"). The DCs in this case are already learning other languages and are already well on their way towards fluency in one of those, and Dvushka's concern seemed to be that she wanted them to become fluent in French. So if that were the sole reason for spending a year in Paris (as it appeared from the OP, although subsequent posts have clarified further) then it would be "wasted" time because long-term fluency is vanishingly unlikely to happen under those circumstances.

A foundation in French - great
Another culture - wonderful
Sparking interest in languages - even better (which the OP seems to be doing very well anyway)

None of those were actually reasons given in the OP.

Fluency - not gonna happen.

And I agree it's not ideal timing to really benefit from it. They probably won't really remember it, especially for just 7 months, it will disrupt their schooling and friendships - although good point about doing it before secondary preparation IF they're going to take an 11+ for example, and international moves are tough on the whole family so to go for 7 months if you don't have to is just too short IMO. Plus your 4yo will miss Reception and be 'behind' at the start of Y1 (not insurmountable) and your DD1 will probably have to adapt to the French methods of handwriting, presenting numbers and learning in general. You could get lots of benefits living in France if a short-term cultural experience is your aim but not necessarily putting them into French school.

Fair enough, I see your points. I'd still be inclined to do it, for the minor benefits I mentioned. Just be realistic about it.

Yes, I too would do it for the other benefits for the whole family.

and I really don't buy this 'they won't remember it' so it's not worth it malarky. Children are a product of all their experiences from birth, not just those things that happen after their seventh birthday.

I will throw in my two cents.

IME (of moving in a pretty polyglot circle) is that it can be very beneficial to expose DCs to another language, and immersing them in it, at a young age. They may not stay fluent, but the "neurological pathways", for want of an expression, are made - it is much easier to learn other languages as an adult, if you've been raised bilingual/had extensive exposure to another language as a child. I have one friend who's first language was Italian (home language Hebrew, second home language - a number of years later, French, and English). She still understands Italian, doesn't necessarily speak it, but has found it really, really easy to pick up other languages and is proficient (if not fluent) in the three languages she regularly uses (hebrew, french and english). I have also met French people who's parents worked in NY for a couple of years when they were DCs who speak very good English, sometimes even still with an American accent.

As for the love of learning languages - that can't be taught. If they're interested, they'll learn, if they're not, they won't, though I can totally see from a life experience/work potential POV why you're keen on this.

I agree with Abs! DD1's first language was Romanian. We left there when she was three. Although she doesn't remember any Romanian, beyond a few words, two of her French teachers have asked me if she had exposure to another language, as she has picked up French very quickly, has a good ear and good accent.

I would also say that seven months is not enough. And the general consensus is that if a child has a language after the age of 10, then they will "keep" it. Any younger than that and it will be gone.

I speak several languages - none fluently, but conversational. German is my best language by far, because I was exposed to it as a child.

I agree that early exposure to different languages is almost certainly beneficial. MrsSchadenfreude our experience does certainly agree with your comment about 'keeping' a language beyond the age of 10. DD1 was educated in Dutch up to the age of 10 when we moved back to the UK. She is still learning Dutch now. DS & DD2 were also in the Dutch primary school and were bilingual at the time that we left but as they were much younger when we moved back they have now completely forgotten their Dutch.

Our experience of moving abroad was very positive and we found our local Dutch primary school to be entirely welcoming.

Our experience when we moved back was very different. DD1 & DD2 settled back okay. DS really struggled. In the Dutch system they dont learn to read/write until around the age of 7 so DS had only just started. Back in the UK his horrid teacher labelled him as lazy because she couldnt read his work and he could barely write. He really suffered and we felt terribly guilty about inflicting this ghastly experience on him.

So in response to OP I would feel more concerned about the return to the UK than the move abroad.