Standard of language education in Britain

[Jill<br><br>Jill (99)]

Did any of you see the Channel 4 programme about a number of English students who had just done there GCSE's being put into a 1950's Boarding School situation? All these 16 year olds were predicted to get A's and B's in 2003 GCSE's and in fact most of them did get A's and A*. However, when put in for English Language, English Literature, Maths and History 1950's O'levels, most of them failed miserably - although just to prove the exams were not way out, some of them did get as high as Grade 1 in some subjects.

The point I wanted to raise was that during a French class, they proved that they couldn't even conjugate Avoir in the present tense and in the 1950's you had to be able to completely conjugate in the present, perfect, imperfect, pluperfect, conditional and I can't remember if they said subjunctive too, but maybe not. I'm sure that in the secondary modern I attended in the first half of the 70's, we had covered the complete conjugation of Avoir, Etre, Aller, Faire, ER, IR and RE verbs within the first year, or maybe two years in the present tense. My daughter has just done GCSE French through private lessons with a French French teacher in England, a year early and got A*. She is doing German next year. It is a matter of frustration to her that she hasn't been taught Grammar to the same extent as she was for French. This isn't the teachers fault, but the National Curriculem's. It is a pity that languages seem to be taught on the basis that no one is going to use them! We spent a few days in Germany this year, but my daughter feels she is no nearer to speaking German because she doesn't have the grammar base. However, she does seem to have taken on board the basics of conjugation simply because the French teaching she has has woken her up to it.

It is said that the emphasis on languages in schools these days is for people to be able to SPEAK rather than write the language. But surely this means that it is important to be able to structure sentences yourself, and therefore know how to conjugate verbs.

Both my children have been through French club systems before my daughter moved to private lessons. At 12, my son has lost interest in French because he needs the stimulation of something more structured than play French.

Perhaps I'm just old fashioned.
What does anyone else think about modern methods of teaching - do you feel that students with more of an aptitude for languages should be taught more the old fashioned way, or do you think current levels of French teaching are good enough.

Another comment - an AS/A level French teacher I know told me that the first term of AS is spent teaching students the grammer that they really ought to have known for GCSE. Perhaps there are some language teachers out there who know better than me. I do realise of course that it is very difficult get much enthusiasm for languages from the majority of modern children because they have been brought up to assume everyone will speak English.

Jill (99)

[merteuil101]

<< an AS/A level French teacher I know told me that the first term of AS is spent teaching students the grammer that they really ought to have known for GCSE. Perhaps there are some language teachers out there who know better than me.>>


In my experience, a considerable chunk of the first year undergraduate programme went on teaching students who had passed A-level French the grammar that they should have known for GCSE.

There is a shortage of teachers in most disciplines, but especially foreign languages. (Blame the National Curriculum again.) This means that students who left university with a not very good degree in modern languages, some of whom had a very shaky grasp of the grammar, are training to teach French/German etc and passing on their mistakes. Those of my colleagues from the same (old-fashioned?) generation as me, used to choke when they looked at their kids' homework, with the mistakes they made that were marked correct, and the correct things "corrected" wrongly by their teachers. One of these colleagues was a Parisienne, and her children had forbidden her to go through their homework correcting the teacher's work!


BTW, some French schoolchildren have the same problems with French grammar.

[Tony_D]

>Did any of you see the
>Channel 4 programme about a

Didn't see the programme, but can't say I'm surprised. Standards have slipped. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater when educationists who should have known better opted for a romantic view of education in the 60s and 70s.

The pernicious influence of their fads and fancies is everywhere, and no more so than in language teaching. They even insinuated themselves into the newer universities, and I can well recall the occasion when a representative of the Council for National Academic Awards told me and a group of colleagues that our teaching methods were "too academic" (sic).

I'm ashamed to say that we caved in. No-one had the guts to stand up and tell him that he was an emperor with no clothes on.

But the rot goes deeper. You cannot teach French grammar in a systematic way to anyone if they don't know the difference between a noun and a verb, let alone what consitutes a legal sentence in a given language.

But the Pollyannas and cock-eyed optimists won out. "Just let the kids express themselves", they cried - as if a knowledge of how language works is at best peripheral. That's when I got out and went into IT.

>This isn't the teachers fault,
>but the National Curriculem's.

Yes, and that's because to some extent the designers of the National Curriculum have accepted pragmatically that they couldn't turn the clock back, even if they had the bottle to do it.

I sent my three kids through the state system, to which I was ideologically committed. One of them (girl) did very well, but the others (boys) under-achieved, and I now understand why people are so keen to buy into the best of the public schools.

>It is said that the emphasis
>on languages in schools these
>days is for people to
>be able to SPEAK rather
>than write the language.

Yes - this is precisely the kind of tosh that I'm talking about. Suppose I teach you how to book a hotel room or an airline ticket, or how to order a meal in a restaurant. Fine and dandy. But what happens when you are outside the confines of those scripts?

The point about learning the grammar is that it provides you with a toolkit for stringing words together that works whatever the situation. After you've learned the grammar, the only limit to your ability to express yourself is the size of your vocabulary in the target language.


>But surely this means that
>it is important to be
>able to structure sentences yourself,
>and therefore know how to
>conjugate verbs.

Couldn't agree more.


>Perhaps I'm just old fashioned.


Well, I'm old fashioned and proud of it. I have seen the future, and it doesn't work.


>or do you think current
>levels of French teaching are
>good enough.

No. They are lamentable. Recently, just before moving to France, I took over a GCSE French class at the local college of FE. I proposed to the students that we should include a good dose of tradtional structured grammar-bashing, along with the less formal conversational material. They accepted the offer with alacrity, and were more than happy with the results.

> I do realise
>of course that it is
>very difficult get much enthusiasm
>for languages from the majority
>of modern children because they
>have been brought up to
>assume everyone will speak English.

Sans doute. But they will miss so much by remaining within the confines of the Anglo-Saxon monoculture.

Best wishes,

Tony (ppre pnible)

[Fil]

You are so right! I have a daughter of nearly 19 now at Uni doing french, and she said that when she started her A levels she was with kids who could not conjugate Avoir! And my son says the same - he could not, and still got a B for GCSE. He has done a year in France and started today back in school in the uk doing A levels, and hopes to be well ahead of other pupils.
However, I think most subjects are the same. The government comes out every year with the GCSE and A level results claiming they have improved yet again, but what alot of people don't realise is that the goal posts keep getting closer! An A* nowadays is commonplace. Loads of kids get them. When I was at school it was passes between 1 and 6, and 7,8 and 9 were fails. Not many pupils even in my grammar school could bost a clutch of 1's. I am sure most of my class if they were to have had the benefit of their own level of education and the modern exams would get all A*s. Almost without a doubt.
That is one reason I am in France.
My other son is in College and is learning german the french way. He and hisolder brother both say that languages in france are taught using grammar etc, butin the uk they were just taught phrases to pass the exam. The older one was certainly not equipped to go to school over here, and his sister, with a B at A level, can converse usefully on the environment!
Oh well.
Fil

[Iceni]

Well I am near retirement age, I did French grammar but I did not do any English grammar of any sort - reason, well we were girls and would be good for housewives or nurses, those in the 6th form secretarial courses did Eng grammar. I passed both Eng Lit and Language with no knowledge of grammar except what I gleaned from French.

My sons both complain that they are at a loss due to the lack of Eng grammar they have. My husband corrects me and I don't mind, my education left a lot to be desired - oh and I passed my 11+ otherwise I would not have gone to the schools I went to.

Did I go to a sink school, no Parliament Hill School for Girls in Hampstead - supposedly one of the best - but lets not forget that gels in those days were supposed to have different aspirations. I'd hate to think what aspriations I would have if I was at school today - work 40+ hours a week, be a mother to three children and work just to pay the hired help.

Di

http://www.iceni-it.co.uk

[letrangere]

My niece is proudly boasting about her sackful of GCSEs in subjects such as celebrity studies and netball. Seriously, she managed to get 8 half of which were grade Ds and Es, which surely translate as grades 7 and 8 in the old O levels and are therefore failed? (In my days we kept quiet about those.) Even more startling, she's going on to take 4 A levels, which "in my day" was something that only those who got a dozen or so Os at Grade 1 dared. One of the four is English Language A level. You can imagine how hard it was for me to suppress a smile when in reply to my question, "what do you study in English language (as opposed to literature) A Level?" she said "we learn all about language, we've done verbs, we're going to learn what a preposition is next".

Um, I seem to remember learning something similar when I was at junior school...

M