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

Well I'm always a little about the notion that certain subjects are not popular.

First, when did that become the yardstick of a broad and enriching education?

Second, funny how all these 'unpopular' subjects thrive in the private sector. Where yes, the children's parents have a few quid in their pockets, but it's not as if they're a different breed!

However, if SLT want to direct children away from 'hard' GCSEs like MFL, into ones where it has been easier to get the magic C-grade, then that is equally easy using timetable blocks, and then to claim that the 'hard' GCSE is 'not popular'.

DD has started at a good, selective, private girls' day school in London. I am dazzled by everything but the MFL teaching. It's no different from when I was a kid at a "bog standard" comp in the rural, southern USA. It's: here is a list of vocabulary words- memorise them; here are some grammar rules- memorise them; if you miss a single accent mark in the spelling you are wrong; etc.

From my personal, lived experience, this is not effective. A big part of fluency is repetition of words in context. Even if you manage to retain a list of vocabulary in your memory, it won't be instantly available to you as you try to speak at normal speed. Also, a big part of becoming fluent requires engaging in the material and just having a go. Creating so much tension in the DC about making a petty mistake is very inhibiting and counter productive. Instead of seeking to engage and communicate the DC try to hide.

I used to speak four languages. The two I learned as an adult, were easy come easy go. The second language I learned as a child, before puberty, I never forget. I get rusty, but I retain a good 80% and get up to speed quickly after being in the environment again for a few weeks. I can think in this second language and don't have to translate back and forth in my own mind. It was the same with the other two that I picked up out of necessity. But after 15 years I have forgotten them almost completely.

I wonder if learning a second language as a child changes your brain so that you can acquire additional languages more easily as an adult than the monolingual can. I also wonder if we should be concentration MFL more on younger children.

Also what is the purpose of MFL education in Britain? Is it to communicate on holiday? Do business? Or have a precise academic understanding of the language and literature. I have a feeling the emphasis is on the latter rather than the former.

Why am I, sadly, not surprised by your description of modern day MFL teaching in even a good school, HeighHogh. It's very wearisome. I also learned four MFL and vocabulary lists and heavy penalties for left-off accents did not feature.

Exactly Bobochic.

Why do we keep making DC waste their time doing what doesn't work?

"modern day MFL teaching in even a good school"

MFL teaching in my DC's excellent state comp is nothing like the description - lots and lots of engaging speaking and writing in context, tidying up issues in spelling and grammar along the way... haven't seen a vocabulary list: the nearest I have seen is a set of classroom instructions / common phrases ('Please can I take my blazer off?'!!) in the MFL in question so that the lesson can be conducted by the native-speaking teacher mostly in the MFL in question.

I have no idea why! It's crazy. And of course ineffective, which turns DC off what is actually a pretty fun subject.

My DD (10) does Spanish as her first MFL (at a French-English bilingual school). She's at the beginning of her third year and she can have a conversation in Spanish about school or domestic experiences. She can write 10 lines pretty spontaneously and accurately. But she has been taught direct method. The vocabulary is all learned in the context of spoken sentences.

Another polyglot here!

I feel sorry for schools. So much is about motivation and exposure. Languages are more a skill than a subjct. DC have had a real head start because:

1. when we went abroad on holiday they saw their parents use the local language and they are encouraged to as well. We also dropped them in local activities without making a big thing of it all being in a different language, and so they just assumed it was normal.
2. their London classmates come from all over, so they are used to hearing other parents speak to their children in French, Spanish, Japanese or whatever. They are also used to being in groups where the language of conversation switches to French (French kids are often pretty unwilling to speak English) and they need to keep up. Over half DDs German class spoke a Germanic language so standards were high and the pace was fast. Similarly I had a colleague with a Nigerian background who spoke good Spanish, and had taken it for A level. Lots of her South London schoolfriends were Colombian so she had been immersed in playground Spanish.
3. I was able to help my children with vocabularly learning. It must be far harder for children whose parents dont speak a second language.

I assume a lot of children don't want to take a second language as they don't see a need. It is very different for non-English speakers as English is so dominent and it is pretty obvious why you would want to learn. Post GCSE DC are happy travelling to France or Germany and speaking to people, which is a nice thing to have. I could not get them to take it further as neither (yet) have any interest in studying in either France or Germany and, to be honest, see Chinese as potentially more useful. If they did need either French or German, or indeed Spanish, the landguage skills acquired so far will give them a useful basis. However I suspect that this might never happen.

(Dann saya nak dia belajar bahasa!)

I don't want to out myself or the school. I'll just say it is one of the top 20 in the country on all the lists that get published by newspapers and the like. I have a big circle of friends locally with children of similar ages. They are having the same problems in our local comps.

So from my limited perspective teacherwith2kids, I suspect that you are very lucky indeed.

As for BoboChic, I wonder if the fact that the school is a bilingual school means that they have a special interest and strength in teaching languages? Or do you think the French just have a different approach generally?

HeighHogh - the school has a special interest in languages but the method and materials are standard CEFR.

Languages are more a skill than a subject.

I think this is a good insight needsmoresleep. I see it this way too. But I wonder if the school system has a different aim.

When I said that we should take the English out of the classroom, of course I meant the use of the English language. We should be teaching primarily in the MFL.
Having said that, as a parent I am relieved when my child has a native speaker MFL teacher, because I know that they will teach them the language as it is spoken. Some teachers who are English don't speak the MFL fluently, or even well. I've certainly experienced that. It takes work to keep a language up to a high level. I had a good (English) French teacher when I studied A'level. He spent every summer in France. It takes that kind of repeated exposure to stay on top of a foreign language.
At my daughter's grammar school only the top performing pupils were allowed to continue with 2 MFLS to GCSE, and the rest were only allowed to take 1. So it wasn't a popularity issue.

It would be great if young people understood that languages were about far more than going on holiday and travel. Although this is fun, there are skills learnt in doing an MFL degree that are special and employers like them. Chinese is not the be all and end all either.

Nearly all MFL degrees require a year abroad. This can be working or studying at a university. Such a fantastic opportunity to prove what you are made of away from home. Lots of MFL students don't actually work using their languages but obviously some do. However MFL students can turn their hands to very many careers. My DD is pursuing law. Languages should be seen as opening doors and, quite honestly, getting into a top ranking university with less competition than law or history! Young people should be encouraged to go for it! Yes, there is a need to do vocabulary, but lots of other exciting things too. I think too many parents and children are defeatist before they even start!

And back we come to degrees.

Education really isn't just about the high attainers, you know!

Of course education is not just for high attainers but it is not just for low attainers either or we might as well import every skilled and well educated person we want! Including Mandarin speakers. Or, we could aspire to give the best possible chances to all our children and that means more state educated children getting to the best universities and trying to get them to do challenging subjects that might actually get them a good job.

This is really interesting as we have been looking at secondary schools and only one of our viable options (distance etc) offers more than one language. Ds's interests lie in the languages and I studied two MFL to GCSE and then two at A Level. It's a real shame that they are not on offer and the only way to access other options is in the clubs that are run - across 3 schools these seem to be Italian, Portuguese, Mandarin and Japanese.

"Or, we could aspire to give the best possible chances to all our children and that means more state educated children getting to the best universities and trying to get them to do challenging subjects that might actually get them a good job."

Or we could aspire to give the best possible chances to all our children, and accept that doing only one language at GCSE is not going to hold anyone back. And that getting to "the best" universities is not everyone's goal. And that the best chances for all our children does not mean saying "This is what I want for my child so let's have a system geared to that and that will obviously be best for everyone else. And if it isn't that's their fault, not the system's"

"accept that doing only one language at GCSE is not going to hold anyone back"

I appreciate that 2 languages aren't NECESSARY for a language degree, but it might be hard for someone intending to study languages based only on experience of 1 language? I know that DS is more confident that he is 'able' in the area of languages by virtue of studying 2 very different languages and doing well in both - a self-confidence he would not show if he only studied 1 IYSWIM?

'Best' chances for ALL children will mean 2 languages for some.

But i do appreciate that, in a pragmatic school situation, weighing up what might be 'best' for 2 different groups of children and only being able to fund 1 of the options does ALWAYS end up with schools not doing the very best for some pupils, instead doing the 'best they can manage' for 'as many as possible'.

In a pragmatic school situation, weighing up what might be 'best' for 2 different groups of children and only being able to fund 1 of the options does ALWAYS end up with schools not doing the very best for some pupils, instead doing the 'best they can manage' for 'as many as possible'.

^This.

I understand what you say about 2 languages and MFL degrees. However, in the last 15 years our school has offered two languages at A level, has never managed to attract more than a couple of students and no one has gone on or wanted to go on to do MFL at university. We have had medics, lawyers, maths, sciences, humanities, English, nursing, accountancy, dentistry, engineers, teachers, art degrees but no MFL. It is a waste of our money to fund it for groups of 2,3,4- infact anything less than 8. It does not pay for itself and uses money from other things.

in a pragmatic school situation, weighing up what might be 'best' for 2 different groups of children and only being able to fund 1 of the options does ALWAYS end up with schools not doing the very best for some pupils, instead doing the 'best they can manage' for 'as many as possible'.

Nicely put.

It is a waste of our money to fund it for groups of 2,3,4- infact anything less than 8. It does not pay for itself and uses money from other things.

This is where, grouping like students together in schools that cater for their needs/desires is a very efficient use of state funding.

And if the pragmatic solutions involves doing the best- if not the very best- for the high attainers and the best for the middle and low attainers then I'm happy with that. Obviously the very best for everyone is the ideal- but that, frankly, needs money that's not there.

That Exmouth community school quoted above has over 2000 students and is looking to expand to 16 form entry.

So you'll be able to learn 8 languages but nobody will know who the hell you are.