English as second language at school

[mids2019]

I was wondering how being a child of immigrant parents where English is a second language at home i.e. the native language is default fare generally at school where obviously English is the language of academic priority?

Do these children become fluently bilingual or is it a challenge to become adept in English if not exposed to the language to a sufficient degree at home?

@CrappyXmasMarket I'd rather my dc did European languages simply because it might open up more opportunities to see the culture in those places. Learning French and German meant I've ended up spending lots of time in these countries and lots of time on easyJet it's not that easy to gain from learning, say Urdu.

I personally think learning urdu sounds pretty interesting though but I wouldn't choose it over a language that I could eventually more easily immerse myself in culturally and linguistically in the native country.

Comparing a child arriving in Tokyo at age 9 is totally different to a 9 year old ending up in a British city. Japan has a reputation as one of the most mono cultural countries in the world. A 9 year old foreign student may well be the only non Japanese student in the school. Most British cities of any size will have schools with children who are multilingual and from different cultural backgrounds. The school is highly likely to employ an ESL teacher and have an ESL policy.

Yes. I know. That's why, in my previous posts, I talked specifically about how the UK has an exceptionally good track record in efficiently integrating children who come in without English or with weak English.

The timeframes I was suggesting were ballpark figures for schools around the world in general, and for what I've seen in international schools here, not for kids coming into Japanese public schools! I'm afraid that most kids with zero Japanese who come in to Japanese public schools at a late agesay,10 or 11 or olderdon't catch up within those time frames because they mostly just drop out and get put in an international school or remote school, once the parents have started to realize things are not working.

If you want some background on EAL and outcomes in the UK, I posted some links earlier, but actually recommend reading this excellent report.
epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EAL_Educational-Outcomes_EPI-1.pdf
Please note in particular the following:

The EAL definition describes children who speak another language at home other than English. This includes children who are British citizens who speak another language at home, as well as refugees
and migrants. The heterogeneity of the EAL group makes overall average attainment figures profoundly misleading

(in other words, EAL-as-a-group includes migrants' kids who come when they are 10 but also includes kids who were born here and were bilingual from a very early age.)

Of all the children with EAL in state-funded schools, we estimate that 65 per cent joined a primary school in England in reception year.28 This group have not necessarily arrived in England at this point; many will have been born in England. A further 16 percent are estimated to have arrived in year 1; most but not all will have recently arrived in England. Less than 5 percent of EAL pupils arrived in each of years 2-11.

(ie, only a small % of EAL are coming in at later ages. Most kids defined as EAL in the UK are fluent in English from early ages. So strong performance by EAL kids as a group does not in any way show that "kids are magic sponges and can go to zero to 'fully grade level' within a few months of immersion")

The attainment profile for EAL pupils starting school in England at various ages strongly suggests that it takes longer than three years to become fully proficient in English (see analysis below). This is consistent with research on English learners in California and Canada that found basic oral proficiency takes 3-5 years to develop and full academic proficiency takes 4-7 years, based on populations including those who were present from kindergarten.23 It is also consistent with analysis of proficiency assessment data collected in Lambeth.24

The later kids arrive, the weaker their attainment is by age 16. In fact, the figures suggested by this report are even more cautious than the ballpark figures I suggested.

As the report goes on to describe, kids who are defined as EAL but have been fluent from an early age outperform their monolingual peers at KS2but the opposite is true for kids entering at a later stage, with later arrivals paying progressively heavier penalties. The same is true for secondary school pupils, looking at GCSE results, kids who enter the UK school system in Y7 are doing far better than those who enter later, which again is consistent with what I said about how it generally takes a few years to go from zero to being able to do well at your schoolwork (obviously, it's a bit different if we are talking about a child starting English in Reception at age 4there is far less to catch up on at that age, and some monolingual children will struggle with spoken English when they are 4).

" I think it might be a class/racism thing - non Euro immigrants are all assumed to be poor/working class even though people who have the means to move countries are often well educated. This is often reflected in their attitudes to school for their children."

Yes, a year or two ago there was a very popular thing on Twitter where people listed things that were seen as good for rich people and bad for poor people and speaking other languages was one of them. (Most of the tweeters were American),

"I personally think learning urdu sounds pretty interesting though but I wouldn't choose it over a language that I could eventually more easily immerse myself in culturally and linguistically in the native country."

I think I might be interested in learning it if I lived in an area where it was very widely used. When I lived in Cardiff, the third most spoken language after English and Welsh, and before Polish, was Arabic and Arabic is obviously useful in a huge part of the world, but pretty difficult for Europeans to learn.

would you advocate the use of English in the home of English is a second language?

I wasn't the poster that you directed your question to, but just my two cents:
I think every family should make the choice that feels comfortable for them, ultimately. However, if it were my personal recommendation, I think that parents should speak to their kids in their native language, if possible.

1. Speaking another languageeven if it seems like a very niche onecan bring great practical opportunities later in life. In fact, very niche languages can be best in a way--companies have a harder time finding competent speakers of them!
2. It creates a way of connecting with your parent(s)' culture, which brings joy and a sense of identity.
3. It can create weird dynamics in a family if the parents are always speaking their non-native language. The kids will rapidly acquire more competence than the parents, which puts parents on the back foot and can make things like discipline hard. It's harder to get properly cross in your non-native language. Siblings may wind up being the ones "in charge" of conversation in the car or at the dinner table--yakking at top speed while the parents struggle to follow them.
4. This is a horrid one to think about, but dementia, head injuries etc can sometimes cause people to lose a non-native language, while leaving the native one intact. If that happens, and you haven't taught your kids your native language, you may be unable to communicate. A terrible tragedy.
5. There ARE valid concerns about "kids not learning English at home can be disadvantaged in terms of vocab," but vocab enrichment is better handled by native speakers (rather than by Mum gamely trying to talk to the kids in not-very-good English), which is why schools and tutors pay a key role here.
6. I've never met anyone who said "My parents taught me their language and I wish they hadn't"; I've met loads who say "My parents never taught me their language and I wish they had."

I think the comments about snobbery interesting.

I assume it takes an equal amount of intellectual endeavour to learn Punjabi or Urdu as to learn French or Spanish.

However we see that universities only seem to offer European languages at degree level (elite unis anyway) and so there seems to be a limit to study these languages.

I am glad people have made opportunities to take GCSEs in Urdu and Punjabi and I was wondering if the posters felt these qualifications aided them?

It does seem we appreciate wealthy people gaining linguistic ability a lot more than poorer immigrants.

Maybe we should continue to change the educational landscape to reflect the diversity of languages and cultures worthy is serious study?

I assume with Brexit there may be a greater focus on Non European languages? We are looking for increased trade ties with India so will Indian languages be looked on favourably for business?

Is there unfortunately a colonial mindset here where we taught our colonies English and not the other way round?

"I assume it takes an equal amount of intellectual endeavour to learn Punjabi or Urdu as to learn French or Spanish."

Well, I would disagree. Punjabi and Urdu would be much more difficult for the average English speaker. However, I presume many of the ones studying them in the UK are people with Pakistani or Punjabi heritage and therefore maybe already some knowledge of the language.

"However we see that universities only seem to offer European languages at degree level (elite unis anyway) and so there seems to be a limit to study these languages."

Tradition and staff availability plays a big part I suppose, but of course they could bring lecturers from other parts of the world if they wanted to.

@mids2019

I assume with Brexit there may be a greater focus on Non European languages? We are looking for increased trade ties with India so will Indian languages be looked on favourably for business?

Is there unfortunately a colonial mindset here where we taught our colonies English and not the other way round?

I assume much of our trade and travel will continue to be with countries that are not at the opposite side of the world. Brexit will change things, but we will always be Europeans just because of geography.

Someone mentioned that many MFL grads are bilingual or have bilingual families.

Is it worth considering applying to do MFL at an extremely competitive university e.g. Oxbridge if you are monolingual in terms of background nd you are competing against other applicants who are truly bilingual (immersed in the language from an early age with family connections)?

Is one of the reasons for the lack of take up of MFL is that it is progressively harder to learn languages as you get older?

If you are bilingual it would seem natural to the up an MFL at GCSE as it presumably won't be that difficult.

"Someone mentioned that many MFL grads are bilingual or have bilingual families."

Is it really 'many' though?
When I studied Spanish we had a girl in the year who was from Gibraltar. I did think that was 'cheating' in a way, but I can't imagine this is a huge proportion of language students in the UK.

@Gwenhwyfar

I was quoting a previous poster but there may be something in it especially for competitive universities. If you were bilingual by background wouldn't you be tempted to take advantage of that in securing a degree place?

It is interesting you thought there was a level of 'cheating' in being on an MFL course as essentially a native speaker. Cheating seems strong but I see what you mean; maybe tactful is the word?

I don't know if it would be easy to get stats on the number of bilingual folk studying languages and would they be that keen on admitting it?

Is this ability to learn languages easily only apparent in naturally academic children though

No.

[quote mids2019]@Changechangychange

Are language GCSEs an academic accomplishment of is ability mainly due to environment/background?

Your point seems to suggest those with dual (or more) language ability due to their upbringing have a significant educational advantage.[/quote]
I don’t think it should come as a surprise if somebody spend hours and hours practising something, they are better at it than somebody who only spends an hour a week on it? I’m not sure if I’d quite describe it as an educational advantage.

Somebody who goes to football practice three nights a week and spends all weekend kicking a ball around in the garden probably has a higher chance of making the school team than somebody who only touches a ball in PE.

"If you were bilingual by background wouldn't you be tempted to take advantage of that in securing a degree place?"

Maybe if you were totally focused on getting a degree and not on learning anything new. Of course some of them may have native-level speaking abilities, but not so much skill at writing or knowledge of the literature.

@Changechangychange

Good point.

However not everyone will have non native language speaking parents whereas most people could get a football.

I take your point you should be rewarded for practice but couldn't one argue that learning a foreign language from a very early age is taking advantage of the young minds ability to learn language and is quite natural on way (rather than requiring a huge deal of conscious effort?)

I feel it would give an advantage sitting a GCSE in Spanish if both my parents were Spanish and I was routinely, speaking, writing and reading that language at home.

@Gwenhwyfar

I agree it may seem wasteful of time studying for something you already know but at the end of the day you will have a good degree for employment.

If you are bilingual wouldn't it be natural to take GCSEs, A levels and possibly a degree in that language as your fluency would make he qualifications (relatively) easy?

Is it the case that language qualifications are meant to gauge your ability to learn new languages not simply the ability in a language you are currently fluent in?

@Eustonhalf

If languages can be acquired by non academic children what does this say about the intellectual merit of learning a new language?

Would it be learning a new language at relatively old age indeed takes academic rigour but if learnt from birth it is more conditioned behaviour and therefore the language acquisition is less representative of the overall 'intelligence' of the child?

@mids2019 Agree, but I don’t see it as any different to parents teaching their children to play the piano, or practising reading at a young age.

I do think immersion primary schools should be more of “a thing” - there are quite a few immersion nurseries near us (Spanish, German and French within a five mile radius). But no immersion primaries.

We used to live in Canada, and French immersion was really common over there. Not everyone used it obviously, but it was available for basically anyone who wanted it.

[quote mids2019]@Nillynally

As a teacher and speaking specifically about English as a subject would you advocate the use of English in the home of English is a second language?

There seem to be some posters that suggest the use of the non English language at home is beneficial because of the academic advantages gained from being bilingual.[/quote]
What is important is that a bilingual child has a strong first language to start with. That they internalise how language works, that languages have conventions, rhythms, grammar, verbs, adjectives, increasingly complex vocabularies etc etc etc. This is what all children absorb as babies as they hear their parents speak, listen to conversations, songs, tv, films etc. This is what future language understanding is based on and this is the knowledge that transfers when a child starts to learn another language. A child who has only listened to parents speaking a second language with non native fluency will not have that rich experience to draw upon.

This also happens when a child who has been educated in a different language and has both oral fluency and written literacy in their first language, starts in an English medium school. The skills are extremely transferable, the child often learns to learn in English at a very rapid rate across the curriculum. It is very hard when you have an older child coming to the UK whose education has been disrupted, or indeed non existent who consequently does not have literacy skills in their primary language, to both learn English and the skills of literacy at the same time. Beyond the first few years of schooling the transfer of learning depends as much on competence in literacy as much as in oral fluency.

I think this also explains why many bilingual children so often lose competency in their first language , they may be speaking to family members in their first tongue , but unless this oral skill is backed up by determined exposure to advanced literacy skills , it can fade badly, vocabulary does not increase, the ability to use complex sentence structures, formulate arguments and discussion does not develop , oral skills remain basic and the first language often becomes the second language by default.

@values

What you say makes perfect sense.

However is there a societal prejudice about being bilingual in some instances? I refer to local children with eastern European parents who are strong in their native tongue and as you eloquently described above do pick up English quickly as languages I guess are based on the same models fundamentally. The local perception may be that is not actually a positive for unknown reasons and one poster states having non native language speaking parents correlates with social deprivation (at least as a school metric).

Is it that we value proficiency in some non English languages more than others? If the immigrant child in your example above came from Germany then the development of both tongues would be a good basis for academic linguistic success as I have said above , but Romania?

There is definitely a hierarchy of “well regarded” languages. Sad but true.

@Mids2019, as someone very eloquently explained up thread English becomes a dominant language because the child is exposed to it for six hours a day in school, is learning to learn in it, hearing it, reading it, seeing it in their environment and at home through tv, videos, tick tok, you tube, films, music etc . Parents and communities who want to maintain a first language really do have to make an effort to keep it language alive and improving, develop literacy skills etc.

Wow, there is so much good info on this thread that I don’t know where to start.

Interesting points on which languages to learn. This British Council report gives a pretty comprehensive overview of what it believes are the best languages to learn;

wales.britishcouncil.org/en/languages-future-foreign-languages-wales-and-uk-need-become-truly-global-nations

State schools most definitely do put native speakers in for MFL exams. It helps to boost the school’s results. As I recall about 5% of maths GCSEs are graded at 9, whereas a huge number (possibly around 70%) of Polish GCSEs were graded at 9.

Because of more native speakers taking GCSE MFLs it has been increasing difficult for non native speakers to get top marks in some of these subjects. This is why a couple of years ago OFQAL changed the grading for French and German GCSEs.

schoolsweek.co.uk/ofqual-to-make-it-easier-to-get-top-grades-in-gcse-french-and-german/

As far as I am aware Unis do not accept an A level MFL by a native speaker to be included as one of the 3 A levels needed to gain entry.

@viques

The comment that there is a hierarchy of well regarded languages is interesting?

Why is this?

If a given language takes approximately equal academic rigour to be successful as others why the difference?

It was interesting that Urdu was offered as a GCSE at one poster's school and there was a high intake presumably as there were a significant number of Urdu speaking families within the community. This seems a good acknowledgment that many pupils are bilingual and there is academic reward for that

I did note at Oxbridge there are a limited number of languages to study at degree level, mostly European nations. Why are these languages prioritised given some of these countries aren't as economically powerful as they once were e.g. Russia?

There must be great body of culture and literature associated with middle Eastern, Asian and African countries that could be offered for study?

A lot of those languages are included in general study of the regions - so you can definitely study Arabic and/or Urdu at Oxbridge, but as part of the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies.

SOAS in London (which I think may now have merged with UCL) offers degree-level courses in loads of non-European languages. I studied Swahili there as a secondment from medical school.