- Show newest for...
- K - Grade 1
- Grades 2 - 5
- Grades 6 - 8
- Curriculum for Excellence
- Day Care
- Adult Education
- Australian Resources
- Adnoddau Cymraeg / Welsh Resources
- Republic of Ireland Resources
- New Zealand Resources
- Canadian Resources
- Currículo español
- Coming Soon
Primary Education News
News Lost in translation: why modern foreign languages in schools needs an overhaul
Can you imagine a British school system where language learning is thriving - a real success story? What would be different? Tom Sherrington imagines an ideal future for MFL
A question any headteacher should be able to answer is this: if you had a completely free choice, what would your school curriculum look like? I've explored this with different people and usually they have trouble fitting in all their ideas within the confines of a timetable. However, even with a completely free hand, I find that all too often language learning is regarded as a problem area. There are pockets of excellence but we're not exactly taking the world by storm as a nation of linguists and, sadly, our current education system isn't likely to change that any time soon. Why is this?
I think that there are a number of serious difficulties that need to be overcome.
Firstly, we simply don't give it enough time in the curriculum relative to what is needed. A standard curriculum will set aside two hours a week, in line with DfE guidance. This just isn't enough to build the level of retention needed to facilitate an interactive communicative approach and to break down students' inhibitions with speaking. Sometimes schools offer two languages to able students but often this leads to them feeling mediocre in both languages instead of proficient in one.
Too often standard pedagogical approaches are limiting and formulaic. It is still too common for students to be given a diet of vocabulary-driven rote learning with a bit of grammar tacked on. Too often I've seen lessons in very good schools where students might learn a list of colours in isolation but could not say "the sky is blue". Or they learn lists of rooms, clothes, hobbies or fruit but can't put a related sentence together with any confidence. Furthermore, six months later, the earlier vocabulary has been forgotten.
Plus, popular culture is almost exclusively Anglo-centric, fuelling a complacent cultural-lingual apathy. Obviously this isn't the fault of any teacher or any school - but it is the reality we operate in. A meagre two hours per week is no contest for the mighty cultural counter-weight that says "Who cares? Everyone speaks English anyway!" And, of course, Borgen has subtitles!
The system is permeated by a strong, self-fulfilling perception that languages are difficult and, therefore, only really appropriate for higher attainers. Fair enough, being blasted too soon with 'nominative, dative and accusative,' terms you don't even use in English, is likely to be off-putting. However, in the right conditions, people of wide ranging ability 'pick up' languages all the time. This might be out of necessity or through immersion but it suggests that it can be done if done properly; it isn't inherently more difficult to learn a language than maths.
Also, I believe, school leaders lack the will and/or the philosophical commitment required to address these issues. I'm sorry to say this but, for a lot of heads, language learning is not high on their list of priorities. If two hours matches the DfE model, where's the issue? And in any case, where does the time from? There is a sense that this isn't our problem and that if we're churning out another generation of poor or mediocre linguists that is just how it is.
Government policy in this area - such as the with the ham-fisted introduction of the EBacc - is not backed up with any resources. Excellent languages teachers are in short supply and this is far worse at primary level than at secondary. So we have a chicken and egg situation: what comes first? More good languages teachers or more high quality language learners who might become teachers? Enabling policies that help to recruit EU teachers and to provide continued professional development to all MFL teachers are not forthcoming. Half the members of our MFL team are native speakers from Europe and China; one of our cleaners is also our Russian language assistant. The people are out there, but schools need help to recruit and train them.
All these difficulties can seem overwhelming, but instead of giving up, let's push all of the obstacles aside for a moment. Can we imagine a version of British culture and British school life where all these issues are reversed? Where language learning is thriving; a real success story? Where multi-lingualism is an everyday part of the cultural experience of young people and adults? What would be different?
Firstly, languages would take up a lot more time in the curriculum. For example, in the five years since we've devoted four hours per week at KS3 to either French or German, we've seen a phenomenal impact: our year 9s are more confident speakers and all-round better linguists than our year 11s ever were before with GCSE results to match. Secondly, MFL lessons would always be characterised by interactive, immersive, communicative approaches where grammar and new vocabulary are seamlessly interwoven and students are empowered with the tools to explore the language by themselves. Finally, schools and the media, supported by politicians and businesses, would celebrate multilingualism to the extent that young people regarded monolingual life as a huge disadvantage and distinctly uncool, and would do all they could to avoid being left out.
If we are ever to reach this point, there is one basic requirement: simply the will to do it. We can dream of a concerted effort by businesses, politicians and the media to move us forwarded but realistically it will be headteachers and schools who will need to show what can be done. It's in our hands.
Tom Sherrington is headteacher at King Edward VI Grammar School in Chelmsford.