Languages in primary schools

Andyrobbo1994

Should it be compulsory for Primary school Children to start to learn useful foreign languages at year 5 and above to prepare them for secondary school and the world of work?
I personally wish that I had been introduced to languages earlier instead of being taught German which is losing its usefulness from year 7

what does everyone else thing about this?

Reply 1

llys

Ideally yes, but seeing as, in reality, the provision would be awful, pupils are probably better off just starting a language at secondary school.

Reply 2

Andyrobbo1994

Why would the provision be awful?
There are ways of doing it, the Germans teach young people english and french from an early age

Reply 3

simplylldxo

Yes they should! Gives them a head start for secondary school :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

Tom26070

I think they should introduce languages in year 5 it would give them a huge boost.

Reply 5

Octopus_Garden

Original post by Andyrobbo1994

Why would the provision be awful?
There are ways of doing it, the Germans teach young people english and french from an early age

They also have more timetable time scheduled to teaching languages (as opposed to twenty minutes a week in a primary school), pupils who are more likely to think it's worthy learning languages, (in part because they are in a system where pupils are kept back a year if they fail too many subjects), and specialised teachers.

And the German educational system is quite different from ours.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 6

llys

Original post by Andyrobbo1994

Why would the provision be awful?
There are ways of doing it, the Germans teach young people english and french from an early age

(1) Because there are no or very few primary school teachers who are language specialists, and now universities have scaled down their language departments, so it's not realistic that you will get more of them.

(2) Because realistically, at most 1 hour per week would be made available, and you would need to do say 30 minutes per day to do something worthwhile.

Germans do teach English in primary school, but from what I witnessed with my nephews and niece the provision is awful too. Basically 1 hour a week coloring in pictures and saying "duck" or "monkey". If that is the best primary schools can do, then it is better not to do it, because it is at best boring and useless and at worst puts pupils off the real thing.

Also, here's a link to an article in the guardian about primary languages.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 7

wildrover

No they should spend the time improving their English skills as that is the universal language of business. Another problem is that there isn't an obvious second language to learn like those abroad who learn English, languages like French, German and Spanish are only useful in certain countries.

Reply 8

llys

By the way: my niece learned English in years 3 and 4 (age 9-10), then went to secondary school and started French in year 5 (age 11) and restarted English in year 6. Teaching at secondary school is very good because it is done by language specialists and there are high expectations of children. I think she learned more English in a week at secondary school than in two years at primary school, which she had anyway forgotten in the meantime because her first language at secondary school was French.

This is not usually a problem in Germany because in most schools the first language in primary and secondary schools would be English.

However, it would be quite a big problem in England, because there is no obvious first language to teach. So some primaries may do French, others may do Spanish, German or Chinese, and at secondary school they'll have to start over, because not all children will have been taught the same language or even any language to the same standard (some children will have been taught some grammar, some won't know what that is). So at secondary school they'll have to start from scratch anyway.

It would be very worthwhile in an ideal world, but in reality it's just not effective enough to be worthwhile.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 9

MarinaBS

Well I live in Germany and when I was in elementary school we did indeed just learn some very basic stuff - but it was a voluntary thing you had to do in your free time. But now seeing my younger sisters go to school they get taught English from the third grade (some schools even offer it in first grade or kindergarden). It is very basic at first but by year 4 they are actually capable to have a small conversation. I'm not saying they could have a conversation with a native speaker - far from it actually. But they get introduced to a new language and that itself is benefitial seeing as most Germans have to take up a second foreign language by year 7.
So I think having an early exposure to another language - even if it might be playful at first (what stuff isn't in the first couple of years with a new subject?) - is something we should encourage. Especially most English speaking countries :wink:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 10

TH3-FL45H

I started doing French in year 5

Reply 11

llys

Original post by MarinaBS

But now seeing my younger sisters go to school they get taught English from the third grade (some schools even offer it in first grade or kindergarden). It is very basic at first but by year 4 they are actually capable to have a small conversation. I'm not saying they could have a conversation with a native speaker - far from it actually. But they get introduced to a new language and that itself is benefitial seeing as most Germans have to take up a second foreign language by year 7.

That's interesting (my nephews/niece are age 11-16 now so my information is some years behind). Do your sisters have a proper textbook for English, and if so what is it? I'd be really curious to look up some of the content.

I remember talking to a grammar school teacher (in Germany) once and he said the provision is so patchy - some primary schools are very good, and some are very bad - that he anyway has to start teaching from zero when the new pupils (from many different primaries) come to his school. But this was a few years ago too.

Germany has it easier than England though, since basically all teacher trainees learned English themselves to a very high level; in England trainees need a GCSE in a foreign language to teach it at primary school level...

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 12

Habsburg

We were all taught very basic French in nursery, thereon after, I had a private tutor before doing it in secondary school (as well as Spanish).

Should children be taught languages at primary school? Yes, absolutely.

Useful languages though? No. I don't think it's about utility. People have often advocated the teaching of Mandarin and Arabic, as they may prove useful in business. However, I think this is a pretty base and soulless reason for learning a language. We should stick to mainly French, German, Italian, Spanish, Latin, and Greek. Okay, some of those might not be spoken as prominently as Mandarin, and Italy isn't going to become the next great power (they had their time). However, those languages have culture, literature, and philosophy. They are also historically close to us. That's why children should learn languages, not usefulness. If I wanted to learn Mandarin, it would be to enjoy Dream of the Red Chamber and such, not for the outside chance that I may have to deal with a dodgy Chinese businessman who probably speaks English anyway. Learning a language should absolutely not be about "preparing for the world of work".