Foreign Language teaching at Primary School - what are your views?

[saraliz]

I am currently studying for my teaching degree and am a TA in a Primary School. I am very interested in Modern Foreign Languages (MFL), although I'm not convinced they should be in Primary Schools and would love to hear other people's views on this.
Do you think children should be learning a language in Key Stage 2? (Due to become legislation in Sept 2011.)
Should all children be included in these lessons, or should some be removed for extra teaching in more core subjects?
If you are a teacher, how confident do you feel to deliver MFL lessons on a scale of 1-10??
ANY views on this subject will be VERY gratefully received!
Please tell me if you are answering as a parent or a teacher.(or both!)
Many, many thanks!

I'm a secondary MFL teacher, and I am fed up with spending the whole of the 1st year (yr 9, in my school) undoing the shite taught by well-intentioned amateur languages teachers in primary schools. I am fed up of going into primary schools and seeing displays riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes. ("no accents? well, just exposing them to it is more important") I am fed up with hearing mantras along the lines of, "if you don't know the word, just make it up. They won't know or remember it". I am fed up with just the mere presence of MFL in primary schools being seen as a magical force that will somehow put an end to children being disillusioned with the subject by Year 9 without allowing specialists to teach it or according the subject with the same respect accorded to numeracy and literacy in our own language.

To get onto a secondary PGCE in MFL you need a 2:2 in the language or to have at least studied it post-A level to teach in KS3.

To teach French/Spanish in a primary school a rusty C at GCSE from up to ten years ago is OK.

We are selling our children short. If it can't be done properly, it shouldn't be done at all.

To

I'm a secondary MFL teacher and we are already starting to see the result of poor PMFL teaching!! It's not the fault of the primary teachers - they are doing their best but they have little if any training and often haven't done any French since school. We still have to start at the beginning as some schools do very little.

North Tyneside are apparently really organised and have a group of specialist teachers who cover all the primaries, and who follow the same 'course' so all pupils in the area get to secondary with the same 'knowledge' although obviously how much they have understood and remember is variable. So if it was done well, it would be brilliant but as the govt haven't even included MFL in primary teacher training, it's not likely to get off the ground.

They tried it in the 1970s (showing my age here!) and I was lucky enough to have a Head Teacher who took a sabbatical to learn how to do it properly!! He was an inspiration to me - absolutely fantastic man. He was so enthusiastic and used 'modern' techniques (for the time) very effectively. Although I had to start again at secondary, I still loved French and was lucky enough to have an excellent teacher there.

Cory, I couldn't agree more about grammar teaching. It is vital when you are learning a language that you understand how it works. I do as much grammar teaching as I can within the confines of the NC! The trouble with modern textbooks is that they decide on a topic, then figure out what grammar they can tack on to it rather than figuring out what grammatical progression is best and fitting the topics round it.

I shall now dismount my hobby horse and breathe!!

Tinuviel - glad to see that I'm not the only one who builds up a head of steam on this one!!

I love grammar and will defend to the death the right (a) to teach it and (b) for it to be a fascinating and fun way to learn a language - particularly for boys, who love problem-solving, working out systems and for whom the depths of adolescent awkwardness make the NC approach of "now talk about a shopping trip" into the biggest turn-off since the idea of their parents having sex.

I agree with it needing to be done by specialists but think it's a great idea to teach languages in Primary schools. I did a German & French degree and briefly taught secondary but hoping to retrain as Primary teacher (ideally specifically MFL) once my DCs are in school. Children are so receptive and pick up languages quickly. In Germany, Sweden etc English is taught from the age of about 6 and look at how well they can speak it compared to our dismal abilities in French (I am of course generalising, but you know what I mean) This country does seem to have a bit of a phobia about foreign languages, which is a great shame.

Yes, I agree it should be taught by specialist language teachers. With exposure to native speakers, too. The Spanish has been such a success in the DS's school that the language teacher is now getting a specialist Spanish speaking TA to assist

DS in nursery and is learning a few words in Spanish. Have heard the arguments that it helps other learning and agree but feel this isn't really the point; DS loves the fact he can count in Spanish and say a few words in French, he also loves showing off on holiday. I feel he is learning to appreciate the joy of another language rather than the actual language itself and I really hope this stays with him in the future. BTW he is taught by a non-specialist who readily admits she struggles but the kids love it anyway.

Annner,

I only teach 2 days a week and home educate my own 3 the other days. I have a home ed French and Spanish group and we use Galore Park textbooks for that because they are grammar-based. They aren't as exciting as other textbooks (but making it exciting is my job!) but they are very sound books with lots of translation to reinforce the grammar points as they are taught. Watching my 8 year old tackle the perfect tense is a joy to behold!!

You may also be interested in this website which a friend has created for me initially specifically to practise grammar (but we cover a bit of vocab and some history and geography now). It has some preset games but you can create your own as well. Can you tell I'm very proud!!

www.schoolmouse.eu

'To get onto a secondary PGCE in MFL you need a 2:2 in the language or to have at least studied it post-A level to teach in KS3.

To teach French/Spanish in a primary school a rusty C at GCSE from up to ten years ago is OK.

We are selling our children short. If it can't be done properly, it shouldn't be done at all.'

Anner: those two facts are really scary - totally agree with you. That presumably means some A-level students are taught by someone who's never taken the language further than them?

But if it could be taught well (no, I don't know where the money/training would come from either ... I'm just asking, in theory), would you support learning a second language in primary?

I think they should learn languages in primary school and the younger the better.

My ds is in year 1 and he does Spanish each week. He loves learning a language and comes home to teach me! He also learnt French at nursery so he can speak a litte bit of both.

Of course it should be taught by a specialist, but languages aren't as popular as they were, (and I speak as someone who loves to try and use her basic A level French whenever I have had a drink). So, where do we get the specialists from if very few kids take the subject at GCSE and beyond?

I'm a Spanish speaker, and had a look at what the children at DS' highly regarded school were taught as Spanish... My god... the pronunciation of the teacher was dismal, even basic grammar was so dreadful that I thought the children would be better off with no Spanish class at all.

So I agree that is a good idea to start learning languages at an early age, but from teachers who know the language properly.

at my dcs' primary "teaching" French is merely an exercise in ticking boxes ...

it's done in fits and starts with no consistency or continuity - once a year they have French week and in Y4 they have a day trip to France - 3 hours in Le Touquet and 12 hours getting there and back

ds2, who's allegedly been "learning" French for 4.5 years now, still can't count to 10 or string the simplest of sentences together

the whole thing is completely pointless and a waste of time

however, I've seen it done properly at one of the local private schools - by the time the girls get to y6 they've made real progress ..

LRD - in theory, an A-level student will always be taught by a specialist in that language. A teacher whose experience barely goes beyond A level will usually not venture beyond Year 9. However, I have heard anecdotally of people with only an A level in a language having to teach it to GCSE, which is scary in itself.

If it could be done properly, then yes, I would definitely be in favour of PMFL: provided the progression to KS3 was as clearly mapped out as it is in other subjects, and without the seeing diet of numbers and a song or two that seems to be so lauded at present.

As I see it, the great fanfare around primary languages followed the logic that they get turned off MFL around 14, and that consequently the years in KS2 and KS3 were the most fertile ground for the years of compulsory MFL. So they were removed as a compulsory element of the KS4 (GCSE) curriculum, with the promise of investment in primary.

The results have been catastrophic for MFL teaching. The promised flowering of enthusiastic primary kiddies (pardon my cynicism!) hasn't happened, as primary teachers are, understandably, anything but, while in many state schools MFL has all but died out above Yr 9. As in the years before GCSE, MFL as a serious academic subject has largely become the preserve of the grammar and independent sector. Regarded as a hard subject, MFL teachers frequently report bright students being pushed by the schools to take subjects in which they are more likely to secure a top grade to secure league table advantage. Some of the languages colleges remain an oasis in the desert, however.

The key problem with finding specialists is that a degree in MFL is not traditionally seen as a route into primary teaching. The idea that teachers who had actively chosen secondary teaching would embrace a move into the primary sector and then find a training place and then a job in the most over-crowded teaching sector, is rather a bonkers one. I love the older kids whom I teach, I love my own primary/ preschool-aged ones, but other people's primary kids all day remain my idea of hell.

I'm not surprised that primary teachers have been reluctant: I'd feel the same if somebody announced that I would now have to teach children physics or chemistry with little or no training. And with parents having very poor languages skills themselves, they are unlikely to pick up on the howlers that then become engrained. By the time a specialist teacher in Yr7 patiently explains that a French person or Spaniard wouldn't have a clue about what you are saying, you have lost all faith in the adults trying to teach you.

Can you tell that I get a bit het-up over this?

Tinuviel - thanks for the link! I love to defy the received wisdom that children can't learn grammatically and that they find it a turn-off. I generally find that they love exploring their own language through the differences between English and Spanish/French

Anner, sounds as if you've a good case for being het up, it obviously affects you.

I had always heard that the age thing isn't just because kids get turned off - after primary school, a child isn't likely to learn the language in the same way (in terms of the brain structure), so it won't be quite as embedded?

I love languages and want my kids to learn several at primary school. ideally I'd like several short courses in a variety of community languages, counting, saying hello etc, with one main language taught throughout as well. I'm not remotely bothered about grammar teaching until secondary level - focus on what small children do best - speaking,mimicking, listening skills, songs, rhymes. all to foster a love of languages and an interest in the wider world and different communities.

mine have learned french for a few years now and got to use it on holiday for the first time this year. I'd been quite cynical about how much of any use they'd actually learned, seeing as they're 7 and under, but they really enjoyed using it and people understood them and were very very happy to join in their chatter and listen to their songs. they also got to play with a few local children using universal child play language and a mix of french and english. such a proud mother

I'm both a language teacher and parent so not sure where you'd put me on your dissertation

Saluton! Kiel vi fartas? *

My DC's do Esperanto at their primary. I waver between thinking that it's a complete waste of time (why not just teach them a 'proper' language?) and believing their explanation that it acts as an introduction to other languages.

The DCs certainly enjoy it. They have an excellent teacher who comes in part-time to teach Yrs 1 to 4. In years 5 & 6 they get Spanish and French from teachers who did MFL PGCEs. The school claims that the children pick up the other languages faster having done the Esperanto first.

• "Hello! How are you?"

incidentally I'm always interested to see how some young children, aged 2+, use language learning 'tricks' that are used by good language learners - it amazes me that those skills are evident from such a young age

"I had always heard that the age thing isn't just because kids get turned off - after primary school, a child isn't likely to learn the language in the same way (in terms of the brain structure), so it won't be quite as embedded?"

Yes, the phonemas are learned before you are 3-4 yrs old, after that, that ability starts to disappear from the brain. Which means that you may learn to pronounce something but yet... can't hear the difference.

Sorry I haven't read all the threads, but all I can say is that all children should be taught a language from nursery or reception at the latest. My children have the good fortune of being bilingual and I think it's such a gift. At their school they will not have access to another language until KS2 and I think it's so late by then. They are perfectly capable/willing to learn so young and they should all be given that opportunity.

The who cut-off point for learning languages greatly exaggerated imho. Yes, you may not be quite as good at learning the sounds at a later age. But on the other hand you are likely to learn far more about how to form sentences and actually say something.

Which would you find most useful later in life: to be able to recite a handful of nursery rhymes in a perfect accent or to be able to have a political discussion or conduct a business deal in a slightly foreign accent?

The problem with the "natural" approach needed to make small children fluent in a language is that it requires hour long daily exposal- no infants school is going to have the resources for that. Even if they have a native teacher, they will be limited to what can be taught in maybe two 20 minute session a week: noone is going to learn a language the "natural way" from such limited exposure.

(those of us bringing up children in bilingual families know how hard you have to work at adequate exposure to the minority language)

Otoh with older children you can explain the rules and so give them the tools to form their own sentences: it doesn't require anything like the same number of hours.

In my opinion, the reason foreign language teaching does not work in this country has nothing to do with the age it is started but everything to do with the shockingly low level of ambition.

I have returned from France. I started learning French at age 11/12 and have not studied it at degree level. I find I can get on well in French: I can not only order my food, but actually talk to people I meet along the way, I can buy a novel and read it, I can enjoy a French film. In short, I can do things with my French. My accent is not brilliant, but people don't struggle to understand what I'm saying.

Dd who started French at school at the age of 9 has an atrocious accent: but even if it was perfect, that still wouldn't compensate for the fact that she cannot put a sentence together off her own initiative, nor (even with a dictionary) decipher a sentence that wasn't in her textbook.

She can reel off memorised lists of food stuff- how useful is that?

After 4 years, she cannot do a single thing with the language!!! And if a school that has generally good GCSE result is not asking itself questions when this happens to a child who in top sets for all subjects, then the level of ambition can hardly be very high.

(French, Spanish and German graduate, living in Italy, teaching English to 12/13 yr olds and have bilingual daughter)

The sooner the better, simply as a means of getting children interested in languages, interested in communicating with others etc etc.

The British school system, by and large, is fantastic, and I defend it to the death on a daily basis. The child-centred learning, the materials, the basic equipment available and the qualifications, preparation and training, and sheer dedication of the teachers is, IMO, second to none. Here, teaching is seen as something-bright-but-not-that-bright women who have been to university do. (very generalised of course, I have met a handful of truly dedicated teachers but the majority really do seem to see it as a second-rate way of earning (very little) money.)

That said, all children here start to play around with English at nursery school and it continues, as a compulsory subject, all the way through till they finish secondary at 18/19. Very few university courses don't also have an English element, at least in the first few years.

The quality of the teaching might not be what it is in the UK. (I know English teachers here who have never set foot in an English speaking country) but what they do have here, in spades, is an acknowledgement of the importance of everyone knowing at least the rudimentary basics of a second language. I do English projects in a middle school, I'm not paid by the school, or even the Italian state, but by the EU. (projects available for the "impoverished" regions in Europe, the school decides how to use these available funds. Languages, with a native speaker are always given a priority because their importance is recognised.

I'd agree in part with, (IIRC) Cory, it's not that important per se when you start doing it, but the quality of what is done, and the "affective" dimension of it, is crucial. (I did French from 11-22, Spanish only at university, but enjoyed Spanish so much more, had such a love for the language and culture that I just didn't have for the French side of things, that my Spanish is still much better than my French)

Allowing British kids to continue where we left off (foreign languages aren't important because everyone speaks English, allowing them to stop at 14) is just plain wrong. I was the only 6th former in my school to do French and German A 'levels, I ended up being shipped to another school for German and sat in the teacher's office for my 1-1 French classes.

Anner another defender of grammar teaching here too! I think another misconception is that grammar teaching is outdated and stuffy. Pah. You can't speak correctly without it. My students do grammar every week. They might not know they're doing "grammar" but they are....(it's the teachy equivalent of hiding vegetables in pasta sauces )

I think MFL in school is great - my kids are native English speakers but are educated in Gaelic and are totally fluent in that too. They are now also learning Spanish and the speed they are picking it up at is truly amazing. They are 6, 8, 10.

The earlier and the more the better, I think.

That's from a parental perspective but as a teacher (not of languages) I also think both broadening the curriculum and making a second (third? fourth??) language a natural part of learning is not just desireable, but almost essential.