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?

I think that the question of "should an A level (or whatever) by a native speaker be regarded differently from one passed by a non native speaker?" depends on what the purpose of the language qualification is. Some universities (or companies, etc.) value language qualifications for practical purposes. Others are not interested in the language per se but will be impressed by an MFL as a marker for an "academically serious" candidate. If it is the latter, it's reasonable for universities and companies to feel differently about a person getting an A-level in French if it turns out they are a native speaker.

Personally, I think that if you speak French or Urdu or whatever at home, you should really be aiming for either tougher qualifications than GCSEs and A-Levels (in the case of Japanese, the JLPT tests are there; perhaps Urdu and French have some equivalents), OR you should do the GCSEs and A-levels but do them at younger ages as an independent candidate.

Ballpark ages I've heard suggested are that if you speak a language at home, it's reasonable to do the GCSE at about 12-13 and the A-level at 15, maybe 16. Doing it at 18 as one of your portfolio of regular A-levels is not a great look. It makes a candidate look like they want an easy A-level with minimal work.

@Kokeshi123
What evidence is there that universities “feel differently” about native speakers. It’s difficult to find evidence that they do. However it’s certainly true that just speaking a language won’t be good enough but it’s certainly easier to prep the DC for university entry exams if the language has been taught from birth. However the literature aspect could be more challenging. I’m always saddened by DC who want a MFL degree but want to avoid literature. This frequently comes up on the higher education board. Personally I think that suits some native speakers who want an easy life and they can already translate pretty well. I actually think literature is what levels out the students. As language acquisition and translation should only be part of the degree, literature and culture is something non native speakers can aspire to be very good at. Although those who spend long periods of time in the MFL country also have an advantage in culture too.

What evidence is there that universities “feel differently” about native speakers.
I thought some examples had already been cited in this thread?

If a fully bilingual student can take a GCSE at 12 and presumably pass at a high very high grade then do we have to look at language GCSEs as if true academic merit?

If a 12 year old got a 9 in maths at 12 there would be much talk of future Oxbridge prospects but would this happen with a child who has been brought up to be bilingual necessarily?

With degree level languages a significant component of the degree has to involve literature doesn't it? The Cambridge prospectus gives the aim of having its graduates having near native fluency. Well there are tens of millions of Spaniards who are pretty fluent at Spanish without the need of an Oxbridge education 🤔

Would it make sense to gauge students mainly on their literature/culture technique and remove assesment on language acquisition as this obviously biases towards native speakers?

It seems there may be a sense that we value the ability of the English to learn a foreign language rather than vice versa? The UK student learning a foreign language at University is regarded academically stronger than say an Eastern European waiter who has gained a very strong grasp of English through residency or is this unfair?

I understand that language can be used practically by employers but I guess the employer will not be concerned whether the language has been acquired through an immersive experience such as foreign language speaking parents or through formal education as long as the communication was sufficiently good.

Would employers be wary of MFL qualifications if it was unknown how much endeavour was put into acquiring the qualification?

@mids2019
I do think there is greater intellect if a student takes a language at university where they haven’t been immersed in it from birth. It is perfectly possible at some universities to swerve a lot of literature though. You won’t at the top ones. However views vary on whether literature is desirable. I can only look at it from my DDs degree and I think very discerning employers do like degrees from certain universities if the employer is looking for a certain type of grad. If they want someone for translating, they might look elsewhere. It’s horses for courses really! Also lots of careers will test and require detailed applications and some work experience. Urdu at 12 doesn’t mean much when you get to 22 plus and looking for work.

I don’t think employers look too deeply at exactly what was studied if I’m honest but in my DD’s field, they seem to prefer top ranking universities. She doesn’t use either language at work though. They are meaningless in many ways but the degree is a passport. You get to prove your worth and then train for the job. The degree gets you through the door but getting the work is about so much more.

We value the ability to learn MFLs at school but this pre dates immigration. That’s why the menu of languages mostly reflects our nearer neighbours or where we trade..

Anyone can come here, learn English and do an English degree. Or any degree. Coming here and taking an exam early in a language you know inside out isn’t seen as that great. It’s also not necessarily an indication that you will do it at university. It might be but often other subjects hold greater interest. I think it’s necessary to have a wide portfolio of gcse subjects. English is one of the best for a MFL degree! Anything with essays at A level. The best degrees require essays and research. These are great skills for a career.

"Would it make sense to gauge students mainly on their literature/culture technique and remove assesment on language acquisition as this obviously biases towards native speakers?"

No. In that case you might as well tell them all to do English Literature degrees or give them an aptitude test.
I don't think academic language courses necessarily have to be language and literature/culture. Languages can be grouped with other subjects. In France you can do a degree in applied languages, for example. I wish I'd had the opportunity to do something like that.

" if I’m honest but in my DD’s field, they seem to prefer top ranking universities. She doesn’t use either language at work though. They are meaningless in many ways but the degree is a passport. "

What does your DD do?

At some universities, such as LSE and Bath they do support their other degrees. At other universities they are seen as a separate academic discipline. What they shouldn’t be, in my view. Is the narrow discipline of language acquisition and translation. That leaves an awful lot not included in the degree and the student not as well educated as they might be.

"What they shouldn’t be, in my view. Is the narrow discipline of language acquisition and translation"

I think even language and culture (including literature, a bit of history, etc.) like I did is too narrow.

For years I regretted not having done European Studies - I didn't even know it existed, but then I read on here someone saying that anything with 'studies' in the name was looked down on anyway.

European studies would be very broad though. How would a syllabus work? Which part of Europe? UCL does European social and political studies. No degree from them is bad! There is MFL attached to that as well. A*AA entry so higher than MFL at Oxford.

‘Language acquisition’ is certainly not narrow and I’m not sure how you define it as a ‘discipline’; I’ve spent my whole career studying it! Google BICS and CALP to see the difference between ‘acquiring’ a language and being able to use it academically.

How can you spend your whole career acquiring a language? What a luxury! How is it used academically? My argument is that language should be used for more than translating the work of others. I think academic degrees should contain research on a decent range of cultural topics and contain original thought.
BICS - British Institute of Cleaning Science? I’m confused!

@Gwenhwyfar

"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."

And how do they prove who is a native speaker? A child could have a parent who speaks the language but claim they were brought up speaking English. A child could have a father who speaks the language, but claim they always spoke their mother's language at home.

There's a bit of controversy going on at the moment because an English MP of Polish origin spent 22k on Polish lessons for himself. He does already speak Polish, but apparently not quite at native level.

They'd have to do an oral exam and I think any teacher would know if they were a native speaker or not. I used to mark exams. It's pretty obvious.

Apart from Oxbridge, which universities ask for an oral exam? In fact, I’m not even sure Oxbridge do! So if students are accepted on exam results where exams are taken in school, who is to know?

A university language education should include a significant amount of critical review of literature or it is in danger of being a means to rubber stamp a bilingual student's prior ability.

I do think we seem to respect the ability of English speakers to learn a foreign language compared to a foreigner learning English and this is reflected in our attitude to language education.

The range of languages available at secondary education level should reflect those that are most relevant in British society in 2022 and not necessarily be bound by tradition.

I think the argument of learning languages of countries who we do substantial trade with is reasonable but given Oxford has been teaching German since the 18th century there are periods where we did very little trade with Germany in the 20th century so trade is not the only reason for the choice of languages we traditionally teach in a lot of schools.

The traditional Latin languages (Spanish,French, Italian) plus German seem to be a staple of our language education but is this due to shared European history and a respect for classics including Latin itself?

@TizerorFizz

Exactly. For a bilingual child universities may offer quite a smooth route if they are tactical enough.

I think it’s inevitable that we don’t necessarily see people coming here and learning English in the same light as we see MFL students who are English. I think it depends on the language though!

@ Tizeror Language Acquisition is my field of research so hardly a luxury. Never mind….

@mrpenny

Good for you! Shame you cannot spell my name! A bit more work needed. Research and being paid for it is always a luxury!

I’m not sure what your issue is? The fact that I had the temerity to disagree with you? Research is a luxury? Patronising and unpleasant.

@mrpenny
I did find it amusing that you have spent a lifetime researching language but could not spell my name. I think you patronised me.

Many apologies, @TzerrFaz. I wasn't aware that omitting the last part of your illustrious name was such a heinous crime and source of amusement. Ah well, better get back to my luxurious job which is trying to find out why some children have difficulties with speaking and writing.