Nov 05 2007
Learning foreign languages
Today we learn that the government’s decision to drop compulsory foreign languages for children under 16 has resulted in a large decline in the numbers learning any language other than English. Instead of saying this was what they wanted - for surely they should have expected this result - the government now says it is going to make languages compulsory up to 11, and will doubtless spend more of our money on this inadequate response. This is not going to turn a nation of poor language skills into one which is fluent in foreign tongues.
I was made to study latin up to the age of 16 and take an O level at 16 in it. I disliked the lessons intensely. I was told I had to be able to translate from latin into English if I wanted a place at a leading University. I felt I was badly taught, but may have placed the blame on teachers for my own inadequacy at reaching a high standard. I had to translate from latin into English as part of the Oxford entrance exam, as part of the Preliminary exam for my degree at Oxford, and as part of the All Souls fellowship exam, so I carried on wrestling with the imperfections of my school level latin. It made me resentful of the Roman imperialism which underpinned the idea that studying this dead language was a good idea, and a critic of the Roman’s strong arm approach to European unity! The compulsion did not win me over to what classicists admired about this long gone civilisation. If I had enjoyed a choice in the matter I would not have studied it. Those who now follow the path I trod do not need to know any latin.
Those who defended compulsory latin would rightly point out that learning some latin taught me more about how English works than I learned in the less formal lessons in my home language. They would say the difficulty of the language represented a good intellectual challenge. As our country’s affairs were conducted in a form of latin and court french for many centuries it should have helped me understand those long gone times. Maybe this is a criticism of how we are taught English, which could include more grammatical analysis. Those who favoured the abolition of compulsory latin would say that I could have used the time I spent on latin on something more relevant to today’s world, and would argue that I have not needed the latin since other than to read the odd inscription on a monument.
Today’s arguments about French, German and Spanish are somewhat similar to the argument about compulsory latin. The truth is that English is the universal language of the present imperial power, the USA, just as latin was in the early years of the first millennium. People do not feel a need to learn these European foreign languages because they can get by in English. The most useful foreign languages looking to the future are likely to be Chinese and arabic. They are thought to be far too difficult to force children to attempt to learn them.
I was taught French to a standard where I could read a novel in the language, and opted to study Spanish to O level. The truth about this is that if you want to be good at the spoken language you need to go and live in a country where the language is spoken all the time, and be forced to use it for your daily activities. In a busy life I do not find myself picking up a book in French, and find the concentration on the written word in the way I was taught would require immersion in the oral language for a period to get up to a satisfactory standard in conversation. Maybe today’s language laboratories and more use of the spoken word has remedied some of these problems, but listening to English people abroad there is still a long way to go to create a nation of fluent French and Spanish speakers.
There is a case to say that children under 16 do not always make informed choices about what subjects are best for them, and that a modern langnuage should be one of the elements of a balanced education. Making children study a language up to 16 gives them the option to develop this interest later in their academic careers if it works for them. I would accept that each 11-16 year old should have to offer one language, even though it runs the risk of causing resentment and difficulty for them. The government should admit it got this wrong and make the necessary change. I do not think making languages compulsory for under 11s before they have a decent understanding of their own language is a particularly good idea. It is always possible to start a new subject from scratch after 16 - that after all is what we do with economics, law and business studies in most schools and universities, and what many will have to do with additional foreign languages.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Children should be taught languages from primary school onwards. I learnt French for 5 years and German for 2 years at secondary school. Five years was enough to give me a basic understanding of the French language, two years was inadequate for German.
There is a very simple reason who other countries are better at being multilingual, even when second languages were compulsary in English schools - they are taught languages from a very young age. Before a child reaches the age of 10 or 11, they are able to soak up languages. The brain is designed to build vocabulary at that age but devotes itself to other skills at a later age. By the time you get to secondary school you have lost a significant amount of your ability to learn languages.
We have some very good Dutch friends. They speak English, Dutch, German and French fluently. They were brought up with English and Dutch TV. They were taught three foreign languages from a young age and now, as adults, they are able to travel all over the world with the reasonable expectation that they would be able to communicate with the locals in one of those languages.
In my opinion, kids should have to learn at least one language from primary school onwards. There is also a case for making them learn latin and anglo-saxon as they form the basis of western European languages. There is most definitely a case for teaching kids to sign - you are more likely to meet a deaf person in England than someone who only speaks French or German.
[Reply]
I speak German and Danish fluently and have working knowledge of French and a fair passive knowlege of Russian. However I make no claim to be an expert in any language. Of course I didn’t learn these languages over night and I only learnt French in school and have lived abroad. It is possible to develop a good level in a foreign language but to become truly fluent it is necessary to live in the country of that language. For those who don’t live abroad its necessary to put in at least one hour of study, every day, and to stick to one book and one audio/video/CD. Often people learning languages make the big mistake of trying to learn from several books at one. However the best thing to do is find one book and study it throughly all the way through three or four times. That way the book will become as good as memorized and a good passive understanding of the language will be learnt.
I believe the big problem with language learning at school is that too much pedantic emphasis is put on grammar. It would be far better to let youngsters develop a language purely at a passive conversational level. Think about how we learn English. We spend a year listening to it before we utter a word. Then we don’t even attempt to start writing until we are four. Then slowly comes the business of learning the grammar. So if we are to have languages in schools let the pupils have language tuition as a taster, and then the grammatic academic studies can be followed up in college. Schools should focus on conversational skills and put grammar on the back burner.
With language learning its important to realise that we can never become anywhere near as good as we are in our mother tongue. So people shouldn’t expect their foreign languages to be on a level with their English. Nontheless, it is still possible to learn a language and enjoy that language at whatever level you understand it.
[Reply]
A good post Mr Redwood but I disagree with your point about learning languages later in life - it is when children are very young that they aquire languages more easily. As you point out, Latin based languages are similar and so learning another one would help rather than hinder general understanding. Also, in my experience, the student who learned a european language most easily was the student amongst us who had studied latin. She commented on the similarity and ease of understanding and because of this I have come to believe that latin should be taught in all primary schools, say from the age of 7 or 8. Perhpas this would ensure that the teachers knew what they were talking about as the teaching of proper grammar in schools today is dire. In fact the teaching of reading and writing in English is dire. I know my grammar is terrible but I see what younger people write on the internet and it’s sad. It has been said there is a direct correlation between literacy and crime so anything that improves the general standard of literacy in schools, for the children and the teachers, gets my vote.
(and I am trying to improve!)
[Reply]
As we become more global in terms of business, so the case for learning more foreign languages strengthens.
It is a deep regret I have, that I never had the opportunity to study more languages.
I agree, Latin may well assist us all to learn more modern languages and indeed our own. I am not so sure about it’s benefit in learning Chinese or Japanese, which are two languages that are in great demand within the business world.
I do have some concern about starting children off in language study too early, in an ideal world I would say yes, start them as young as possible, however many of our youngsters seem to be struggling with their native tongue let alone a foreign tongue.
I have a working knowledge of French and Russian but I would have loved to have learned Spanish and Arabic as well. Perhaps one of these days I shall invest in a couple of language courses for home study.
John: A political opponent on the BBCs Question Time programme saddened me last Thursday night bringing up your inability to sing in Welsh. I noticed that the BBC recently used that same incident on film to introduce your recent policy report. Seems like underhand tactics to me. Your sensible views on most things must be getting your opponents worried, keep it up!!
How long ago was that singing incident now?
Reply: I am the only politician Labour and the BBC want to endow with eternal youth - my sing song was 14 years ago, and of course they do not have the sound track! Yes, it does imply they are worried by my arguments, as they always concentrate on something so long ago rather than engaging with what I have said and written recently.
[Reply]
Just a little light relief John: why not teach them Welsh?
Excellent blog.
[Reply]
Dear John,
Your post appeared in my “Languages” Google Alert this afternoon and it was interesting to read your thoughts on language learning in the UK. As a French teacher, SSAT Languages Lead Practitioner and fellow blogger, I feel that we should applaud the government’s decision to make languages compulsory at primary school. Teaching Year 5 and 6 in a middle school I know from first hand how primary age pupils love language learning and have less inhibitions compared to the older pupils.
If we are going to make primary languages a success and avoid those mistakes made in the 1970’s when this idea was previously mooted, we will need to ensure that we have a suitable number of qualified staff to do the job properly.
This should be either a classroom teacher with a GCSE or above in a foreign language who after some training feels confident enough to deliver suitable lessons or a MFL professional from a local language college who visits once a week as part of their outreach work.
My feeling is that the latter will be the most common scenario and arguably the better alternative if it allows for new language to be regularly reinforced throughout the week rather than in a one off lesson. Sustainability and progression are the keys here really.
As for why more and more young people are dropping languages post KS3, it could be argued that this is due to a number of significant factors namely:
- pupils perceive MFL as a ‘difficult’ subject compared to others
- it seems harder to achieve a good grade at GCSE due to ’severe grading issues’ in languages
- they don’t feel the need to speak a foreign language and lack motivation
- languages are not necessarily a priority for a school’s Senior Management team who perhaps prefer to concentrate on other subjects for achieving the 5 A*-C benchmark.
In the Languages Review conducted by Lord Dearing in March 2007, there was much made of the role of technology as a way of fostering motivation and making language learning more purposeful for many young people. When speaking about the potential of enhancing language learning with technology at The SSAT Annual Languages Conference and The Language Show 2007 in recent weeks, I’ve used the following quote taken from the review to reinforce this point:
“Young people’s familiarity with ICT offers a great opportunity to language teachers. It seems to us that a determined commitment to use this world, which is so familiar to young people, is a key to increasing the engagement of young people of all ages with languages. New technologies can facilitate real contacts with schools and young people in other countries. They can also provide stimulus for creative and interactive work”.
To support teachers who are interested in using ICT in their lessons, I created a blog called Integrating ICT into the MFL Classroom in May 2006 which contains many posts on subjects such as blogging, podcasting, interactive whiteboards and video conferencing. Today I received my 70,000 hit which shows there is a need for such training and support to exist.
Encouraging young people to choose to carry on with languages to GCSE and beyond is going to be difficult for the reasons I’ve already given. However, I feel that the more we use technology such as mp3 players, mobile phones and social networking sites which they like to use in their own time, the more we will engage them and offer them more opportunities for distance and personalised learning.
We must try and find ways of convincing pupils of the importance of language learning to properly prepare them for adult life and to raise their awareness of other cultures and people around them. To reverse the present drop out though is not going to be easy.
Best wishes
Joe
Reply: Thank you for your interesting and helpful ideas.
http://www.joedale.typepad.com - Integrating ICT into the MFL Classroom
[Reply]
When blogging about this myself I’ve just realised I should have written ‘former’ instead of ‘latter’ in the paragraph starting “My feeling is that the latter …”
Best wishes
Joe
[Reply]
Mr Redwood,
2 years ago I moved down from London to Bideford, North Devon. Hardly a hotbed of language learning or exposure, one might think, but actually you would be wrong.
Languages can, and indeed should, be fun. I now teach Spanish to 3 year olds all the way through to 18 year olds. And guess who picks it up the fastest? Yes, the 3 year olds. Their minds are not closed to the outside world, and in fact they’re intrigued by the unknown. Unlike older pupils they do not have any preconceptions about languages, or any fears.
However, languaes do have to be delivered in the right way, and supported by educational authorities. Primary teachers are immensely busy people, weighed down with reams of directives. Primary languages can be a burden for many, who do not have the expertise to leave them feeling confident in presenting the subject. Only with support can this be fully changed.
And a last, unexpected point. By the age of 5 the human mouth begins to lose its capacity to make new sounds. No wonder that if you start learning a language aged 14 it feels more than a bit tricky.
The earlier, the better. Eurosceptic or not, we need languages, and we need them young.
Chris
[Reply]
[...] three times z day, but when I found out that former cabinet minister, the Rt. Hon John Redwood was blogging about views on language learning in the UK, I felt compelled to leave a comment and then blog about it myself [...]
[...] three times a day, but when I found out that former cabinet minister, the Rt. Hon John Redwood was blogging about views on language learning in the UK, I felt compelled to leave a comment and then blog about it myself [...]
[...] three times a day, but when I found out that former cabinet minister, the Rt. Hon John Redwood was blogging about views on language learning in the UK, I felt compelled to leave a comment and then blog about it myself [...]
“good post”
[Reply]