MFL at secondary level, is this normal?

[MidnightVelvetthe3rd]

Just looking round state secondary schools now. One school we have visited just offers French as a MFL, is this normal or do most schools offer more than 1 language? I think I thought that most schools offer 2 so was surprised.... but I have no experience

It's not just money, surely it's also time. I just don't understand how you study five languages within a certain number of school hours without dropping the ball somewhere else.

Obviously this problem is worse here in Wales as there's an extra core subject, but still, it must be an issue elsewhere, especially as it's now the norm for top set pupils to take 3 science GCSEs.

Also, I do wonder how much it really, genuinely matters. If you're at a tiny rural comp in Wales, you're not going to get the same range of subjects on offer as in a big city school. But equally, I think there are other benefits that balance it out to a large extent - not necessarily in school alone, but in life more generally.

Just to give one example, if you're in rural Wales any child who shows the remotest talent for singing, reciting or music will be forced strongly encouraged to develop this and compete for their school/region. You could argue the benefits for and against competitive public performing as compared to a second language - it seems to me it would be hard to come down on one side or the other.

Come to that, are English pupils disadvantaged as compared to the large functionally bilingual cohort in Wales, given the number of advantages of bilingualism that have been shown in many different studies?

I don't think any child would study 5 languages. There's a choice of 5 languages. I think most would study French on its own or plus either German or Spanish, with a few bright ones doing Latin, and the most successful of those doing Greek too.
Learning classical languages stretches the brain, gives an insight into the past, and will be of practical use to a minority. I was actually told, at University interview, that it would be useful if I had a classical language (luckily I had Latin). But given the choice of a live or a dead language, I'd go for the live one.
A large school can make economies of scale. But from what I saw of the school it's also down to good management and ambition.

Dds school offers French German and Spanish, but each child only gets to do one, and it is a random allocation.

BertrandRussell would you like me to hold you back lest your fury overtake your eloquence? Well said :) :) :)

How many kids go on to speak mandarin
I speak French as I did the a level then an Erasmus year
I also studied German to GCSE
In hindsight focusing on one language would have been a better use of time in order to gain a mastery
Iatin and Greek would have been useful too for French, science and also English
Interesting discussion though

If you learn French to a good standard, you can easily pick up Spanish and Italian.
If faced with deciding for a whole school, I would teach French (likely to go there on holiday, easy to organise exchange trips), then after 2 years add Spanish (very easy to learn, especially after French, and spoken by many people in several different countries).
Chinese is really just for fun, and as an introduction to the language, as very few will move on to studying written Chinese seriously (unless they have a Chinese family background). Spoken Chinese is not difficult, but learning to read and write is a big and permanent commitment.

That school might advertise they learn Greek but that could well be an enrichment activity after school. As explained, if they put all those languages in the timetable there would be cuts elsewhere.

Also in favour of French, I'd add that it's very, very useful if you ever have dealings with the European Commission, even if you can only read/understand & not speak.

DSs school does French German and Spanish.

They do one MIL in Y7, and two in Y8, with no choice. (Apart from the DC who need extra English, which seems to be half the year )

DS goes to an independent with a yearly intake of 100. In yr7 every child does 2 MFL (from an offer of 3) plus Latin. Greek is available off-timetable to those studying A level Latin.

"DS goes to an independent with a yearly intake of 100. In yr7 every child does 2 MFL (from an offer of 3) plus Latin. Greek is available off-timetable to those studying A level Latin."

Good. And this is relevant to language provision in a state school exactly how?

Exmouth is one of the biggest schools in the country - 2500 children - which gives them flexibility and economies of scale. Apparently their curriculum is so wide and so highly regarded that they have people coming to visit them from schools around the country to find out how it is done!
As you can tell, I was very impressed by the Head's speech to prospective parents. If my child ends up going there (unfortunately unlikely) I will report back on specifics.

The reason why MFL provision in independent schools is relevant to the state sector is because the level of provision in private schools is something the state sector should aspire to. The independent sector is very over-represented in MFL undergraduate numbers. Why should these degrees only be attainable by private school pupils?

State school parents should demand better. It is often a case of wanting to teach a subject and funding a way. Good schools do this. In very many state schools they do aspire to teach at least 2 MFL. There are obviously schools with pressing needs which might curtail this, but I still would like to see all schools striving to do the best for all their students, not just the ones who need remedial English! The brighter ones deserve a good education too and if this is 2 MFL then so be it.

Often parents may not know a child is good at MFL before they get to secondary school. I did not know mine was a potential Oxbridge candidate in MFL at 11. She had never done a MFL at all, ever! Her talent was discovered at school. There is no KS 2 SATS test in MFL! My DH and I can barely speak a word of anything other than English despite a grammar school education. Instead of complaining about schools, or making excuses for their policies, parents should make a fuss if opportunities are not given to children. Gifted children need an appropriate education too!

"Funding" should read "finding". Although clearly funding would be needed!

They do, that's true. If the funding was better, state schools would have more choice. And if there were more MFL teachers it would be less risky.

I wonder whether something could be done with young French/Spanish etc people from the relevant countries. There could be a scheme for those wanting a gap year, for instance, whereby they could undertake a short course on teaching French etc as a foreign language (we have great TEFL courses to base these on), and would then spend a year or two in a school. I would love to see all children being taught by native tongue teachers. No more of those dreaded occasions when you hear the teacher attempt to speak the language and realise that your child is being taught by someone who gets loads of the grammar and vocab wrong. And they could be paid at teaching assistant rates. They would get a great experience of teaching and of living abroad, and would return to their native countries with fluent English. And no more shortage of language teachers.
Young people like this do work as language assistants in some private schools already.
I'd like to see most language lessons conducted in the foreign language.

Why do people persist in thinking that if only state schools tried a bit harder they could offer everything that a good private school does?

It's the same people, I suspect, who persist in thinking that if only people gave up smoking and fished down the sides of the sofa they could afford private school fees too.

I studied MFL at A-level and university and I wish my school had offered more than the standard French and German.
I appreciate the comments regarding able pupils versus the average language student as I have strong memories of sitting in classes where only a handful of students were genuinely interested in learning a language and the remainder were there under sufferance. I did French from year 7 and German from year 8 I think. In an ideal world, I'd have sat GCSE French in year 9 or 10 and then done Spanish as well. I actually picked up Spanish alongside my A-levels and it was ridiculously easy after learning French. Equally I've learned bits of other romance and germanic languages easily. Thing is though, I know the average student isn't like that and it can destroy a love of learning to be forced into a classroom to study a subject that is unlikely to be used after leaving school. I might be biased/wrong but I always feel that the ability to learn a language is almost innate, much like learning music or a sport, rather than a skill that can be learned like maths or history. I totally understand all the additional benefits learning a language can bring, but equally, should those with low ability be forced to continue or should the time and resources be freed up to better use?

Sorry OP, massively off-topic but part of me thinks only offering 1 language is dreadful but another part of me would hope that there are better resources elsewhere in the school.

As an aside, if schools aren't offering a good range of languages, where are the next generation of teachers going to come from?!

I have often thought it would be good to get assistant PE teachers from Spain to teach eg football to disaffected boys - maybe a football skill assessment to make it a desirable option, and speak only to them In Spanish. They would soon pick up the lingo for the limited amount of communication required - would be fun, cheap - there would be no assessment of the language to make them fear 'failing' and might actually help them to see that MFL has a value.

BertrandRussell- I'm with you all the way!!
Now to rummage down the side of the sofa for private school fees.....
BUT- no, happy with inclusive comp down the road that I think offers French and Italian. I have a feeling my son will do one and one reluctantly....[year 6 so surrounded by wound up parents desperate to get their darlings into the 'other' comp that offers Latin and 1000 pound school trips-swoon].

Other countries (some of them) manage to teach English to vast numbers of state educated children. Real English, to a standard that actually enables them to communicate in the language and read the odd book or article. I appreciate that their learning English is much more important than our children learning French or whatever, but we could still learn from those other countries. And it's not all about state and private. I've witnessed some terrible language teaching in private schools. But it's accepted in this country that learning a foreign language is terribly difficult and the aim is to pass GCSE, not to communicate, because the latter would be ridiculously ambitious and is not the job of schools.
Maybe all children except those who find it very difficult should learn one language. Let's make it the easiest potentially useful language, Spanish. Then linguistic children can be given a choice of another one in Year 8.

1. I would love to see all children being taught by native tongue teachers. Being a good MFL teacher is far, far more than just a secure knowledge of the language.

1. a TEFL course. That would be totally inadequate to learn the craft of teaching. They would have to get used to the culture for a start. Teachers in France and Spain are treated with a lot of respect and it is a highly sought after job. For my PGCE, there were many trainees from France. They were utterly disgusted with what teachers in this country have to put up with. Out of about 30 who completed the course, only one stayed as a teacher. The rest went back to France where the job is considered a privilege.

1. would spend a year or two in a school. They wouldn't want to. And if they did and paid as a TA then what would be the point? They wouldn't be able to mark any books, assess any work, plan any lessons, attend any parents' evenings.

I think your plan is flawed. The role is unattractive. That's the bottom line.

Let's make it the easiest potentially useful language, Spanish.

There are nowhere near enough teachers.

See my suggestion above about bringing in Spanish young people, giving them a one month training course. They could then teach under supervision. Not under current rules, no doubt, I am talking about looking at something new. I honestly think that it would be difficult to end up with a worse outcome (in terms of being able to use a foreign language) than we have at the moment.
This kind of idea will will no doubt be much more difficult to implement with more and more schools become one man bands, rather than having large numbers grouped under Local Authority control.
The role of permanent teacher in the UK may be unattractive to French people (who knows about Spain?), but would not necessarily be unattractive to young Spanish people on the basis of spending a year or two in the UK, perfecting their English, and gaining good work experience and experience of living abroad. They could then return to Spain, more employable than previously.