Decline of Modern Languages

[gurnemanz]

Bit of axe-grinding here: Having spent my entire professional life teaching languages, it hurts me to observe the decline shown by yesterday's A Level figures. French down from 30,000 in 1993 to 11272 this year. German 11,000 down to 4242. Furthermore, a disproportionate number of those are at grammar and independent schools.
There are many reasons for this, apart from a general reluctance in this country to bother to learn a foreign language:

• More options in sixth forms and particularly sixth form colleges. Languages are seen as harder than more “interesting” subjects such as psychology, Media Studies and Business.
• Lower numbers doing GCSE
• Emphasis by government and schools on so-called STEM subjects.
• Recent teaching approaches up to GCSE have tried to make languages seem fun and avoided teaching skills (ie grammar proficiency ) which would be essential for A-level

The result is a catastrophic loss of critical mass in language studies especially at state schools. 15 years ago, the decline had already started, and our daughter was the only student at our big local comp wanting to do German A Level. She was actually allowed to do it - in a class of one! Nowadays, I suspect, no head would permit this. Modern Languages provision is patchy to GCSE, let alone at A Level. Lack of A Level teaching also makes a school less attractive as a place to work for well-qualified linguists.

Mr Gove’s planned abolition of AS Levels will certainly not help A Level numbers. Language acquisition is a cumulative process like learning a musical instrument and it helped to have AS Level as an intermediate stage.

Laudable efforts are being made to teach languages at primary schools. By the time these students get to state secondary schools there might not be any modern language departments left.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Recent teaching approaches up to GCSE have tried to make languages seem fun and avoided teaching skills (ie grammar proficiency ) which would be essential for A-level

Indeed. GCSE French now seems more about learning "about" French than actually learning the language. But in French schools, they still learn to speak English. (They use our spellings too, unlike in Germany where the American language rules OK.)

[french frank]

Indeed. GCSE French now seems more about learning "about" French than actually learning the language.

Bit like Classical Civ/Studies taking over from Latin (and Greek). We were writing our little Latin proses for O Level. Dido media nocte se interfecit &c.

[Alain Maréchal]

I have just watched Jermeny Paxman ask a perfectly straightforward question of French Grammar on University Challenge. Does this mean that foreign languages, even the common ones, are now likely to trip up undergraduates? One team, by the way, was completely at sea with 'Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard'. So perhaps the difficult stuff is studied but the basics of civilised comversation are not.

[Demetrius]

While I am on board regarding a broad approach to language education, I would deny that if you don't know anything - straightforward or not - about French Grammar, you automatically missed out on civilised conversation. You can have a very civilised conversation in any number of languages virtually untouched by french, and some of the more civilised (as in cultured) persons I know have little active knowledge on the grammar of their own mothertongue, let alone a foreign one.

[gurnemanz]

PS to my opening diatribe: At least, the GCSE numbers were a bit more encouraging. No guarantee, of course that they, might continue to a higher level. I used to tell students that obtaining a GCSE was just a starting point towards any kind of useful proficiency. Our daughter got an A in French GCSE. Now aged 31, she can hardly use the language at all.

[Alain Maréchal]

While I am on board regarding a broad approach to language education, I would deny that if you don't know anything - straightforward or not - about French Grammar, you automatically missed out on civilised conversation. You can have a very civilised conversation in any number of languages virtually untouched by french, and some of the more civilised (as in cultured) persons I know have little active knowledge on the grammar of their own mothertongue, let alone a foreign one.

Perhaps the emphasis didn't come out correctly. I was not suggesting that French was a necessary part of civilised conversation*, but I was suprised that knowledge of basic French was considered so arcane as to be worthy of questions on UC. (I wonder if that has made my point more clearly, possibly not).

*even though I believe it.

[mangerton]

.........I was suprised that knowledge of basic French was considered so arcane as to be worthy of questions on UC. (I wonder if that has made my point more clearly, possibly not).

When I started secondary education in the 60s, I started four years of (what was then compulsory) French and Latin. Two years after starting French, I did German for a year. I have never had a Spanish lesson in my life.

I answered all the French questions on Monday's UC without any trouble. If they had asked the ame questions about German I'd have been struggling, and I wouldn't have had a clue about Spanish.

I understand that many schools now offer a choice of F, G, or S. That may go some way to answering your question.

[decantor]

I confess to complete ignorance of how schools proceed with the teaching of French today, but it seems to me that the planning of any modern language course for the young presents a dilemma: viz. whether the aim is for literary access or for conversational fluency (with the constant danger of falling between the two stools). The former requires some knowledge of grammatical structure and a wide vocabulary, the latter less so but is best started at as early an age as possible while the brain is flexible and no inhibitions have set in.

In my days of facing such problems as a student, the emphasis in French was almost entirely on the literary - we read Corneille, Maupassant, Camus, and more; and yet, despite enjoying the language and listening to French radio, I never gained any real conversational fluency in it because we had read far more than we had heard. These two aspects of acquiring a language are by no means irreconcilable, and yet one without the other seems a shame after years of study.

I also worry that Latin (and Greek), traditionally always taught analytically, have dived down the synthetic path with the CSCP (Cambridge course), thus partially depriving students of the sound grammatical and syntactical framework that can so readily be applied to other (European) languages. But then there's little Classics anyway outside the private sector.

[Pikaia]

I also don't know how languages are taught today, but when I was taught French in the 60's we began by learning to decline the verb "to be". What a bizarre idea! The best way to learn French is the way the French learn French, by seeing it used. The way we were taught is completely unnatural and therefore inefficient. If we had been taught better then I am sure we would have learned much more.

I also have strong criticism of the teaching of Biology, Religion and History were taught, but that is another matter. I hope things have improved since then!

[teamsaint]

I also don't know how languages are taught today, but when I was taught French in the 60's we began by learning to decline the verb "to be". What a bizarre idea! The best way to learn French is the way the French learn French, by seeing it used. The way we were taught is completely unnatural and therefore inefficient. If we had been taught better then I am sure we would have learned much more.

I also have strong criticism of the teaching of Biology, Religion and History were taught, but that is another matter. I hope things have improved since then!

Well history is heading back to the days of date based rote learning.........

[Demetrius]

I used to tell students that obtaining a GCSE was just a starting point towards any kind of useful proficiency. Our daughter got an A in French GCSE. Now aged 31, she can hardly use the language at all.

The key to history (and arguably other subjects, not so sure reg languages) is this. If you force feed dates into children you will get two results: they will now an awfull lot of numbers for about 3 weeks around their finals and most of them will resent the subject for life. Better to create interest, by telling stories etc. 5 Years out of school most "Allgemeinwissen" (General knowledge? Is that term actually used?) that got pounded into people is gone anyway.

PS: Sorry Alain if I read your post the wrong way

[teamsaint]

The key to history (and arguably other subjects, not so sure reg languages) is this. If you force feed dates into children you will get two results: they will now an awfull lot of numbers for about 3 weeks around their finals and most of them will resent the subject for life. Better to create interest, by telling stories etc. 5 Years out of school most "Allgemeinwissen" (General knowledge? Is that term actually used?) that got pounded into people is gone anyway.

PS: Sorry Alain if I read your post the wrong way

You seem to have been Away too long, Demetrius ....

[Demetrius]

You seem to have been Away too long, Demetrius ....

The fact that I wouldn't be allowed to do it like this is the one of the more weighty reasons of me not becoming a teacher

But many new history teachers around here (and I have to study with them) decided on history as a second choice, because they didn't know what else to pick. Their interest and insight into the workings of the subject is ushually quite limited, and their ability to charm and interest others ...

There is always the chance that television does what school ought to do, I guess

[teamsaint]

I was very lucky to have a history teacher at A level, who was good, but more importantly, believed in me, when others couldnt care.

That is worth everything. I will always be grateful for that. It is the greatest thing a teacher can do, in my opinion.