french in primary school

[3duracellbunnies]

I'm new to mumsnet, but have read posts for a while. I am a bit concerned about my dd2 who is in yr2. Her form teacher is teaching them french, but dd1 is coming home pronouncing words as we would say them in English, e.g. lion. She says her teacher opens the book and reads the word out to them. Dh's family are french so he is gettling a bit concerned. We end up correcting her, but are worried the incorrect pronounciation may stick.

Her teacher is v nice, she had her last year too, and I have a potential solution in that I know a retired french teacher who drops her grandsons at the school and says she might be able to teach a bit or help her. I am just not sure how best to approach it, talk to the teacher directly or whether to talk to the head so I don't upset her feelings. It's not that I expect her to become fluent , but I don't want her learning it incorectly. It is also quite possible that she is being taught it correctly but forgetting when she gets home. Any advice?

But surely it depends what you are teaching, which was my point? When you think about the Aussie accented song, they have at least learned to sing in tune, and had music skills reinforced. In other subjects we work around it-I won't go near teaching tuneful songs because they imitate me, but I will provide IWB lyrics which follow a singer on spotify etc. It's not too hard to do this in French given the resources out there, providing we are not trying to follow a narrow 'start with je m'appelle get to the subjunctive' curriculum.

If you sit down and say ''this is how we say hello' in French and its awful, then OK, some harm done, and it needs weighing against the advantages of familiarity with other languages, and serious thought given to whether French is the way to go (given 200+ different languages are spoken as native tongues in English primary schools).

But to suggest that there is no benefit at all to language speaking because the pronunciation is bad or the grammar wobbly, or to suggest that it's only really learnt after spending time in country, that seems rather simplistic too? MFL teaching can be much better, needn't be French, but the touchstone of whether it is worth it shouldn't be perfect pronunciation and communication at this level, any more than the measure of maths teaching should be the ability to differentiate.

It was fine singing a song in an Australian accent-it added to it-it wouldn't have been fine teaching French with an Australian accent. Foreign language in the primary school should be all speaking IMO so if you can't speak it you can't teach it. I can understand it and read it but I don't think that helps.

I think the teachers should not be burdened with teaching a language they don't know or blamed for not doing it properly. If the government decides to introduce this initiatives they should be prepared to offer the support (££££) to enable hiring/training of specialist teachers.

Having said that I have seen private classes taking place in the afternoons or in private schools where the parents pay for the classes who is thought by a person who doesn't know the language. I think that is fraud, as proud as parents are of hearing their children count to ten in another language that is pointless...

I agree entirely with adelaofblois that MFL teaching in primary schools should bear no resemblance to the methods of teaching employed in secondary schools. The starting emphasis should be very much on learning through singing, games and listening and a bit of talking - hence the importance of what you are listening to being well pronounced and accurate. There are plenty of CDs (with proper modelling of the accent...) and specialist materials for primary level teaching out there for use by teachers - eg La Jolie Ronde. Learning about the language and culture of another country when you are very young should be fun, not a boring list of words and grammar to learn in a very bad accent.

I agree rabbitstew. I think it an excellent initiative but they have to employ people who can speak the language.

Difficult one. As a teacher I would prefer you suggested that you know MFL is being taught and know someone who would like to be involved. If she is finding it hard she may well be keen to have help.

Personally I don't find teaching MFL an issue as I have A level French and kept it up. Plus we use teaching resources which really help, and I previously worked with an MFL specialist which was great. Teaching French I have no issue with, I have had to teach basic Spanish and I have to say that I couldn't have read it from a book without getting it completely wrong, I used our resources which included videos of pronounciation.

Hope this makes sense, watching QI at same time!

Thanks for all the responses. I now feel more justified in my concerns. I also spoke to a friend who has a daughter in the same class and is on the staff team. She reckons talk to the teacher. Dh also trying more to speak french with them. They are lucky in many ways, although not bilingual they listen to him speaking and already use some french words in conversation, we spend 3-4 weeks a year there and when they do speak people comment on their good accents. Will see what the teacher says on mon.

It will be very difficult to make a case for spending money on French provision and experts, though. At a time when teaching resources for aspects of the foundation curriculum (such as music) are being squeezed, investing in a subject which is not now a statutory requirement is a hard call for most heads to make.

I learnt several languages, dead and living, after 11, and I really value the skills in getting them right and communicating. But I'm less certain that having a Yr6 kid who thinks the French for 'My name is' is 'Dzi me apple-y' is worse than having one exposed to no MFL. Yes, pronunciation will need correcting, but KS3 teachers are dealing with huge aspects of transition-from kids taught formally to those who have no MFL-and can handle this. If the kid concerned has learnt that words don't map exactly, has been exposed to MFL when less resistant (Yr3 want the register in French, hard to imagine YR7 being like that..) that is a huge positive.

But the ideal is clearly age-appropriate, fun and accurate teaching (as it is for any subject). You can help your school achieve this, so do. But don't, perhaps, get too hung up on accuracy and lose sight of the other gains?

It's a bit harder to see the gains if you are fluent in the language yourself and hear your child mangling it. Paying for a specialist teacher to come in once a week for a year to model good primary level language teaching so that the teachers who are terrified of the idea have good practice to model from for when they take over seems to me like money well spent, particularly in a school that clearly still intends to continue with MFL despite the fact they are no longer going to be compulsory at primary level (for the time being).

ps 3duracellbunnies - you haven't said whether your dd is actually enjoying her school French lessons... if yes, then at least that's a positive!

@rabbitstew

I agree, but do also do a double take and try and make myself see the gains. I hate the way primary language separates discursive and persuasive writing, for example (terrible model for university essay), am infuriated teachers are taught to use full stops for abbreviations and contractions (it is Mr not Mr.), with the indiscriminate use of hyphens in adjectival clauses, with suggesting planets orbit in circles or that metals are magnetic, with all manner of things which are 'wrong' and seem unnecessary-not simplifications but just errors. But I teach them because I am expected to, and can see why overall they help.

I can't help thinking languages are a bit strange because most people who care either speak them well or not at all, and the steps towards that get lost.

'Dzi me apple-y'

No, shudder. No, really I would prefer it not to be taught at primary to being taught that far off. I wouldn't expect the modelled pronunciation to be the equivalent of an educated mother tongue speaker but a good approximation of it by a teacher whose mother tongue is English would still be ok. A dc who speaks with a very strongly defined English accent can still be intelligble with a bit of goodwill on the part of the hearer but an entirely mispronounced phrase or word is just not going to be understood.

You can still learn about other cultures/traditions/lifestyles without learning to say a few things so incorrectly that a speaker of that language cannot understand you. I also feel it need not always be France/French.

OK, I agree, but what is missing there is a sense of the child's whole MFL learning. They will be taught correctly at KS3, nobody is saying that is an acceptable, the question is whether it is worth jettisoning some of the positives because the phrase is unintelligble to a native French speaker, whether that should be the key assessment for KS2 learning. Ultimately more expert folk than I, and especially KS3 teachers, would be better placed to judge, I feel.

It is also worth remembering that even the framework which did exist did not make communication, language precision central to delivery at that stage-it made experience of using language key. Hence a school could be teaching dzi me apple-y and still be meeting its requirements, even if MFL were statutory.

I didn't really understand your last post

KS2 dc should experience using language in some way, regardless of comprehensibility? This is what you recommend or what a teaching framework sets out as goal. Is that what you meant? Sorry I couldn't figure out your point.

The government was very anxious that KS2 language learning was about language use and enjoyment not about specific language goals or language provision-it was not intended to be a precursor to KS3 in the same way as other aspects of the foundation curriculum are. Hence, although clearly desirable and hinted at, the broader NC did not prescribe specific skills or languages to be learned (including pronunciation). Hence, although clearly not what was intended, there is a possibility (other things taken into consideration) that incomprehensibly bad utterances in another language would meet benchmarks in many other ways.

The variability in teaching is and remains extreme, with some unexpected results (many KS3 teachers actually seem to feel too much early learning is a problem since those kids arrive at KS3 over cocky and cruise through whilst those without that language learn). And to me the lack of clearly defined expected knowledge is important when thinking through whether what the OP writes of is 'OK', because the expectations on entering KS3 matter to the child's whole experience. If you sent a child forward to KS3 with the equivalent deficiencies in Maths, you would have failed the child. If you send a child with substandard learning forward to a situation where NO learning is assumed, it may be different.

I don't personally know what I 'recommend'. I don't think many colleagues are happy with teaching French, don't think it right to teach it that badly, and have not been properly trained in how to cope (as they are with other subjects where their personal skills and knowledge may be weaker). But I don't know whether a fun and wrong French lesson encouraging appreciation and experimentation in another language is better or worse than no French lesson overall, have no way of weighing those two sub-optimal solutions.

I see thanks

I wouldn't mind if she wasn't taught french, they are also learning swahili (?sp) this term and to that when she comes home telling us how it is said we just say that's great because I know that by the time she ever has need for the language it will have been forgotten. The french however has been reinforced over the past few terms and I assume is set to continue during the school with varying degrees of competence. It is also a language which we use regularly both in the this country and abroad, for example at a toll booth dd2 in yr 1 pipes up look a peage. The trouble is we don't have much call to discuss lions, but telling the children it is said the same in french as english means that it may be remembered as such and then at some point she has to unlearn it. I like the idea that they learn french as it supports our efforts to introduce the language but I don't like the confusion and splitting between home + school where she has to choose who to believe. I has a similar thing when her age when I could read before starting school but the school used ita. Which involved whole books written in lower case and phonetically 'i luv mi mummi' mad scheme, my spelling took ages to correct and I can remember now reading one of these books and not understanding why it wasn't like the books I was used to at home. I would almost rather she didn't learn it at all at school than get mixed messages, but I know she is in a relatively good position having such exposure out of school. My parents know no french, so I started secondary school with no knowledge of even how to say hello.

My understanding has always been than MFL secondary school teachers tend to take the view that being taught no MFL in primary school is preferable to being taught badly and arriving with a myriad of unpredictable and bizarre bad habits to be talked out of.

We got this MFL chucked on us. My secondary school on the first week there arbitrarily split us - into French and Spanish... I did Spanish and I'm actually pretty good at it.

Unfortunately schools in this country seem to still love teaching French. I wing it as best I can, spend time on the net checking pronounciations if I have to teach it, all my flash cards and resources have very faint pencil pronunciations written on the back of them for me to crib from - but I get shit scarred of teaching pronounciation incorrectly as it's the bit of French I struggle with... I love it when I get a chance to do Spanish as that's much more my comfort zone. Fuck it I could do Latin if needed as well - but French - we had 30 minutes a week for a year since we were the top set, and he was a really dodgy teacher who'd try to look up the girls' skirts!

I would bite the hands off of anyone able to help me with it - cos we got bog all help from the LEA (well we had someone who came in to play parachute games for half an hour in a staff meeting once) about implementing it.

Unfortunately, primary teachers are expected to teach across all subjects and I think a lot is expected from them. I have a Dd in Y3 and she will be doing some Spanish this year. I have no objection if her teacher is not a native speaker. I do not expect Primary schools to provide native speakers. However, the whole cultural aspect is equally important.
There is a wide range of online resources out there for both parents and teachers so if a primary teacher is not confident with the accent part they can use a CD or DVD. I am sure there are very few primary teachers who do not use these resources.
I believe early introduction to a foreign language is very important and I would not place too much emphasis on how "native" the accent is. Children will mimic and copy everything at a young age, including accents but if you feel your child is developing the "wrong" accent you can always get them to use a CD at home.
If you have a partner/grand parent e.t.c who is a native speaker, then you have an added bonus, get them to help with the accent.
I have taught Spanish at Secondary level and have lived in Spain for a few years..if you want a perfect accent, you need to live/work and use the language in the country. We holiday a lot in Spain. My Dd knows a few words, these she has picked up from being there, her accent is fine.
Songs/Rhymes are good for the younger children.
The TES website is a great resource for Modern foreign languages if you are interested in taking the time and effort to find the resources.

It is even more important for native-speakers to teach MFL at primary school than at secondary school. The major benefit of access to MFL in the primary years is the oral/aural learning that is so much easier for young children. Learning songs, poems, counting, colours etc with a native speaker can be hugely beneficial to later, structured learning (of the sort that goes on at 11+).

Aries12 I don't mind if the teacher isn't native, or the accent isn't perfect, but if dd1 starts telling french people that she is a 'fill', no one will understand that she means she is a girl as the pronounciation is so far off what it should be. Her accent is good as she has learnt that from her father and grandpa, but unless we know all the words they are teaching then we can't correct every word, and besides if they are on a daily basis say counting in french, it may on a daily basis be emphasised that 6 is said as six not sees, I don't know but they may even 'correct' her if they think she is saying it 'wrongly'.

Unfortunately her teacher was off today so will need to wait for her next drop in session next week.

OP - definitely talk to the teacher - I bet she bites your hand off.

Personally I would rather my DC were not taught rather than taught by someone with no idea of pronunciation. At that age it is all about the sound - I was taught french by native speakers from 6 to 11 and that foundation saw me through to A level - at 6 we played games and sang songs and worried not one iota about understanding.

At senior school I made myself unpopular by wincing at my French teachers broad Yorkshire accent (when speaking French) but that is another story

I think it's unrealistic to expect that all language classes will be taken by a native speaker, nor is it realistic to expect a British teacher's accent to be spot on perfect.

However, tehre's a difference between having a bit of a foreign accent (which is normal) and pronouncing things plain wrong, which seems to be the case here, and I think you have cause for complaint in that respect.