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

You might be right about grouping students together across schools in some areas. If you look for my previous post on this thread, you will see we have tried that as well- across anumber of schools, a private school and a sixth form college. We got 5 students and two dropped out at the end of Y12 so we are now running an A level group of 3 and transporting students from 3 venues to be taught in one place. It is madness. Sixth form funding in schools has been heavily cut. These groups soak up funding - we are subsiding this class by about 6 thousand pounds- it takes 8 students to be financially viable.

The answer to creating economically viable groups for minority disciplines is either selective schools or super schools. Small and medium sized comprehensives won't be able to do it.

I think you are right BoboChic.

Is that the point of schools- to indulge the requests of individuals or to provide the best education for the needs and wants of the majority? In any case, it is not true. Our local private school has the same issues as local comps- students don't want to do MFL. In my experience, the people who desperately want to do two MFL at A level have been encouraged/driven by parents rather than have a desire themselves- usually parents who did it themselves (or the mother did) or who are social climbers who think it is advantageous and it really is not.

I don't understand why the middle classs are so obsessed with it. It is nothing to do with employment- speaking Spanish or German or French or the latest trend for Mandarin Chinese is not very likely to get anyone a job unless as a translator or a travel rep based in a resort. The same skills are developed in other subjects more effectively. It is old fashioned snobbery really.

I know shed loads of plurilingual lawyers/bankers/management consultants/marketers. They wouldn't be able to do their jobs without 2 or 3 MFL.

Without giving too much away... About 15 years ago, I watched other students in an international program get hired into prestigious banks in London, on top of the range salaries because they could speak some German. These guys and gals had no finance in their background of either work or previous education. Some of the best students in the program were English. Highly analytical, numerate, well mannered, well presented, articulate. But, monolingual. They did eventually land on their feet, but it was a harder struggle.

Now, I realise that there is an element of luck here. Speaking the right language, in the right place at the right time. But another language can definitely help.

I entered an international management training program coming out of university. It was competitive and speaking a second European language helped a lot.

When you are a native English speaker it is easy to be complacent. But I do think the world is changing and it will become harder and harder to spend your whole career in an English bubble if you are ambitious.

Bobochic - how is being a selective school a way in which to make languages economically viable?

If you select on criteria that make an aptitude or preference for MFL more probable, you can create a critical mass of pupils to enable economically viable class sizes.

I can see the discussion has moved on a lot but here's my input.
My secondary school (pretty poor state school) only offered one MFL (French). I took it right up to A-level, then did a dual honours (Law and French) degree. I now also speak fluent Spanish and Italian and have lived in all three countries.

Worldsbiggest you are a prime example of how you can have a great career and only study one MFL at school

Many schools, despite excellent MFL teaching, can not attract students to the subject. The truth is lots of children, by the time they get to 14, do not enjoy MFL and can see no relevance of it. It is the first thing they choose to drop.

I had a discussion with a group of friends last week, we all took MFL to GCSE or A level - 8 of us there, all working in well-paid jobs with a career structure, earning 45,000+, all mid 30s up to 40- and not one of us has ever spoken the MFL we studied since, apart from on holiday. We work in Education, law, accountancy, medicine, marketing.

I am all for children studying an MFL if they choose to and they should have the opportunity to choose to but we really have to stop the pretence that it is vital and every child must take one to 16.

"If you select on criteria that make an aptitude or preference for MFL more probable, you can create a critical mass of pupils to enable economically viable class sizes."

Creating another educational environment which benefits the able at the expense of the less able.

Which is, whatever some parents of able children seem to think, not a good thing.

Well what's the alternative bertrand?

The gap between what some state comprehensives are offering and the selective state options/private sector is highly problematic.

The education on offer is starting to look very very different even on the basics.

This is part of the argument for schools selecting on ability. More academic students want to take a different mix of subjects. It's not just having the critical mass to get the ability sets right, but having the right mix of teachers, teaching the right subjects to match to the students.

Super large comprehensives, say year groups of 500 would solve this. Or, sensibly sized schools, where the inputs have "been standardised." ie. pupils needing similar teaching and subjects grouped together to create an economy of scale.

Or schools that share facilities (where geography allows).

It is absurd that a town near me has three schools in walking distance of each other and they don't pool resources and facilities! Each one trying to stretch its finances. Each one trying to be all things to all men.

You cannot offer specialist subjects in any meaningful way in a fully comprehensive school system - it is never going to be economically viable to do so. You have to decide which is the lesser of two evils: some kind of selection or no specialisation.

Or what seems to happen round here - London - so plenty of secondaries within walking distance of each other, which is schools working together as consortiums so at least for sixth form, pupils have a wider choice.

Another option is for private and state to work together. So the private school has, say, a new teacher in a minority subject who is not fully timetabled. They are then able to provide GCSE teaching for a small class at the local state school. It probably costs less than providing a single bursary, yet delivers more in terms of charitable aims. Plus their teacher gets broader experience.

Languages are not a middle class thing. For goodness sake. And if you have a any kind of talent for MFL they are dead easy. I did German A level and my revision was visiting Germany. It left me plenty of time to concentrate on my other two A levels that I did need to do some work for.

If you did say English language, Spanish and Italian A levels you would have a very easy two years. And with the internet it's even easier to keep up to speed with MFL now, watch foreign language programmes and read online newspapers for example.

It's funny how everyone manages to learn English to a decent standard in other countries. Well actually it's not. They learn it because the culture is that learning languages is a good thing. We just have a lazy culture which says what's the point because everyone speaks English (they really don't).

That's a nice idea needmoresleep. I wonder what percentage of secondary schools could take advantage of this. Urban areas definitely have more choices and the advantage of pooling resources. Not every comp is near a private school that can help, or even other comps with which to work. State education should be offering children an appropriate education without having to rely on kismet.

They learn it because the culture is that learning languages is a good thing
No they learn them because they need to.
Like it or not, there is less need for an English native speaker to learn another language. If that person actual needs a language, as a pervious poster said, they can immerse themselves in it and learn rapidly. They will never learn enough in a UK MFL classroom to do business in China ( a notion sold to pushy parents as a school marketing tool)

Ahh quote from the Pimlico website

"All Year 12 students have a full timetable of at least three A Levels and an additional accredited activity.

Pimlico Academy Post 16 is a part of a consortium arrangement with other schools and colleges in Westminster including The Grey Coat Hospital School and Westminster City School. Students are able to take at most one subject in a Consortium School or College."

State and private schools working together seems to be increasingly common in London, supported strongly by some local authorities who often take the initiative in getting senior staff round the table. More obvious examples are Harris Westminster supported by Westminster School and Hammersmith Academy, which has strong links with St Pauls Girls and Boys schools.

From observation there seems to be several obvious areas of joint working, including music, sport, smaller subjects including MFL, teacher INSET training perhaps on things like SEN support, Oxbridge applications, STEP preparation, management and administration, etc. And that the traffic can be two way, with all staff involved having a chance to broaden their experience and understanding.

For students going to university, many now offer language courses to non MFL students.

Mrs it's easier to pick up a language through immersion when you already speak more than one language. It's a valid argument for starting the children much younger. All that time reception kids waste trying to learn to read when half of them aren't developed enough to even start could be better spent on a sing song in French, etc.

Agree it is probably easier to learn English because English is the dominant language and is ubiquitous throughout pop culture. It offers more chances for casual and consistent exposure.