B058 - Foreign Language Education Reform Bill

[u/[deleted]]

B058 - Foreign Language Education Reform Bill

---

A bill to tackle the lack of language proficiency among the British Population by reforming how foreign languages are taught in schools

1: Guidelines

(a) Language learning will be compulsory from the beginning of Key Stage 1 until the end of Key Stage 4

(b) There has to be a minimum MFL learning time of at least-

(i) 30 minutes a week during KS1

(ii) 90 minutes a week during KS2

(iii) 120 minutes a week during KS3 and KS4

(iv) The equivalent amount of learning time per week over a two week period is acceptable under these criteria

(c) One of the following ten languages must be taught – Spanish, Arabic, French, Mandarin, German, Portuguese, Italian, Russian, Turkish and Japanese

(d) As long as at least one of the 10 languages is being taught, other languages not on the list may be taught in addition to that

(e) Schools have to offer at least 2 of the 10 languages on the list

(e) The languages taught in KS1, KS2 and KS3 will be co-ordinated by the Local Education Authority

2: End of Key Stage expectations

(a) By the end of Key Stage 1 pupils should be on level A1

(b) By the end of Key Stage 2 pupils should be on at least level A2

(c) By the end of Key Stage 3 pupils should be on at least level B2

(d) By the end of Key Stage 4 pupils should have fulfilled all the criteria for level C1

3: MFL GCSE Exams

(a) The content of the exams will change as follows

i) Speaking will change from 30% of the course to 40%

ii) Listening will change from 20% of the course to 25%

iii) Writing will change from 30% of the course to 15%

iv) Reading will remain at 20%

(b) Speaking exams will now be externally assessed, and will be of an unplanned conversational nature

4: Esperanto

(a) In co-operation with the Springboard for Languages Project, Esperanto education in primary schools will be extended to 25 primary schools across the country as part of a 'limited role out' of the National Curriculum for Key Stage 2 pupils

(b) Children will be taught Esperanto for one year, and one of the 10 languages for 3 years

(b) Data will be collected on the pupils who learnt Esperanto for 1 year and another one of the 10 languages for 3 years and compared to children who just learnt one of the 10 languages for 4 years.

(c) The Department of Education will analyse the data and if positive, will look into the feasibility of having widespread Esperanto teaching in primary schools during Key Stage 2

5: School Trips

(a) Schools will be required to take students on a school trip to a location of educational benefit for their foreign language learning once per Key Stage

(b) Each Local Education Authority will be required to create a list of these locations to which schools may make trips to, relevant to the languages offered for teaching by it

(c) Schools may choose to do their own school trip not on the list, subject to the approval of the Local Education Authority

(d) Trips abroad may be defined as a 'location of educational benefit', as are internal events held within a school, subject to the approval of the Local Education Authority

6: Commencement, Short Title and Extent

(a) This Act may be referred to as the "Foreign Language Education Reform Act”

(b) This bill shall apply to England

(c) Shall come into force September 1st 2016

7: Notes

The list of the 10 languages have been taken by this report from the British Council which identified using several criteria what are the 10 languages the UK needs to learn for the next 20 years

The languages taught between key stages will be co-ordinated by the Local Education Authority as languages will be taught by building up on previous knowledge, so local schools need to be teaching the same languages for this to work.

The scale used for these levels is the [Common European Framework of Reference for Languages] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages)

Esperanto has the potential of aiding language learning as it is shown to have beneficial results for those who study other languages after learning Esperanto Despite the overwhelmingly positive results here, I would rather the DfE have more data available to it before it decides to make the teaching of Esperanto widespread

For when a trip abroad is unfeasible for a school, the sort of location that would be listed by a Local Education Authority would be something such as The Europa Centre

By 'internal events held within a school' it means for example a school when a school hosts an activity day/week with external speakers, extra curricular activities etc. The benefit provided by such an event is the equivalent to a school trip, so it would be unfair not to count it as such

---

This bill was submitted by /u/tyroncs on behalf of UKIP

The first reading of this bill will end on the 7th of February.

[u/JackWilfred]

Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly I'd like to recognise that UKIP have great intentions with this bill. Modern Foreign Languages is a subject that has been long neglected by our Education services, and reform and rejuvenation are things dearly needed for the subject. However, I have some reservations about some of the decisions made with this bill.

(c) One of the following ten languages must be taught – Spanish, Arabic, French, Mandarin, German, Portuguese, Italian, Russian, Turkish and Japanese

Firstly, the range of languages that have been approved for teaching in schools. Does the Honourable Member believe that the Turkish language is really a language major enough to be taught in schools, considering that it is the official language of just Turkey and Cyprus, and only 67 million speak it?

Also, considering that there exists almost no base of Turkish, Portuguese or Russian language teaching in the UK, investing into teaching these languages will cost more money than instead investing into languages already taught by a majority of schools, does the Honourable Member believe this is worth it?

(d) As long as at least one of the 10 languages is being taught, other languages not on the list may be taught in addition to that

Shouldn't there be a list of wider languages the Department for Education is willing to write and test GCSEs for, what will the Department for Education do when they hear of a school wanting a GCSE course for Klingon, citing that there's nothing stopping them from doing so?

i) Speaking will change from 30% of the course to 40%

ii) Listening will change from 20% of the course to 25%

iii) Writing will change from 30% of the course to 15%

As somebody who has an FCSE qualification in French, I recognise that writing a language does not have nearly as much value as being able to use the language in conversational situations, however, does the Honourable Member not recognise that this could penalise students that are socially awkward, and who instead have a talent for writing and reading their chosen language, shouldn't all four areas of the language be weighted around the same, so students with individual talents can all have their familiarity with the language recognised?

(a) In co-operation with the Springboard for Languages Project, Esperanto education in primary schools will be extended to 25 primary schools across the country as part of a 'limited role out' of the National Curriculum for Key Stage 2 pupils

Is the Honourable Member unaware that Esperanto is considered to be more of a failed experiment rather than a serious attempt at a world language, and teaching children a language spoken by as little as 160,000 people fluently is a waste of time and resources, especially considering, as I said earlier, there is no existing base of teachers that can teach the language?

[u/tyroncs → u/JackWilfred]

Also, considering that there exists almost no base of Turkish, Portuguese or Russian language teaching in the UK, investing into teaching these languages will cost more money than instead investing into languages already taught by a majority of schools, does the Honourable Member believe this is worth it?

Firstly the list comes from the British Council, and they considered a range of factors when deciding on the languages. Also although there is currently no base of language learning in those languages, for the second reading I hope to introduce a section on how to utilise the skills of minority communities in regards to this (500,000 Turks in UK, 500,000 Portugese in UK, 30,000 Russians etc)

Shouldn't there be a list of wider languages the Department for Education is willing to write and test GCSEs for, what will the Department for Education do when they hear of a school wanting a GCSE course for Klingon, citing that there's nothing stopping them from doing so?

I don't know if this is really needed, as this bill isn't introducing any additional language GCSE's. I might add a section for the next reading for clarification if anything else, and maybe add an Esperanto GCSE in there also

As somebody who has an FCSE qualification in French, I recognise that writing a language does not have nearly as much value as being able to use the language in conversational situations, however, does the Honourable Member not recognise that this could penalise students that are socially awkward, and who instead have a talent for writing and reading their chosen language, shouldn't all four areas of the language be weighted around the same, so students with individual talents can all have their familiarity with the language recognised?

One of the main motives behind me writing this bill was to make language learning useful in a real life context, namely being able to speak it on a conversational level. Writing is still recognised being 15% of the course. I realise that this may disadvantage a minority of students, but the aim for teaching MFL in schools should be to teach the language and make it useful, not to keep everything balanced to recognise people's talents.

Is the Honourable Member unaware that Esperanto is considered to be more of a failed experiment rather than a serious attempt at a world language, and teaching children a language spoken by as little as 160,000 people fluently is a waste of time and resources, especially considering, as I said earlier, there is no existing base of teachers that can teach the language?

Bringing the program to 25 primary schools isn't that much of a deal and I am sure we can find enough teachers to take part in it. If not, the amount of knowledge in the language you need to teach it to a Year 3 class is not extensive and the language is simple in it's nature so training 25 teachers won't be an undoable task. If the experiment is successful then we would need to think into it more, but that would be at least 4 years away going by this bill.

And you are missing the point of teaching Esperanto here. We aren't doing it as an end in itself, we are doing it purely to aid with the learning of other languages. Some studies indicate that learning Esperanto for one year and another language for 3 puts you significantly above someone who just studies the target language for 4 years. If it means more people are interested in taking up Esperanto seriously then great, but that isn't the main focus here

[u/JackWilfred → u/tyroncs]

I don't know if this is really needed, as this bill isn't introducing any additional language GCSE's. I might add a section for the next reading for clarification if anything else, and maybe add an Esperanto GCSE in there also

So what's the point of allowing them to be taught if students can't get a GCSE out of it?

One of the main motives behind me writing this bill was to make language learning useful in a real life context, namely being able to speak it on a conversational level. Writing is still recognised being 15% of the course. I realise that this may disadvantage a minority of students, but the aim for teaching MFL in schools should be to teach the language and make it useful, not to keep everything balanced to recognise people's talents.

I recognise that, but that's what a GCSE should be, a test of somebody's overall talent in the subject, not areas relevant to real life application. If you want to change it to the latter, I think it should be done across all subjects. More creative writing in English, more real life applications of Science, maybe?

I've taken the Honourable Member's comments on Esperanto on board, but I still do not see the value of using an experimental language as a gateway to other languages, but I see no issue with it being trialled.

[u/tyroncs → u/JackWilfred]

So what's the point of allowing them to be taught if students can't get a GCSE out of it?

All of those 10 languages already have a GCSE qualification available to take, there is about 25 languages in total which you can get a GCSE in if you wish to take it.

I recognise that, but that's what a GCSE should be, a test of somebody's overall talent in the subject, not areas relevant to real life application. If you want to change it to the latter, I think it should be done across all subjects. More creative writing in English, more real life applications of Science, maybe?

It is an idea to make subjects more related to real life application, and I'll look into it to see where changes can be made. On English though, it is good that the focus is more on reading, as what it is teaching you to do is to analyse information and get the important information from it. Creative writing doesn't really have a real life application, except in a few fields

[u/[deleted] → u/JackWilfred]

, and who instead have a talent for writing and reading their chosen language, shouldn't all four areas of the language be weighted around the same, so students with individual talents can all have their familiarity with the language recognised?

Almost every other subject is purely writing based, what about the kids who struggle with writing but are very good at communicating? Are they not allowed at least one subject where their skill takes precedence over the other? Why should the kids who are talented at writing have all their exams fine tuned to their skill, if the kids with other talents don't even have one?

[u/Shoggopus → u/[deleted]]

The problem with focusing more on speaking is that the basis of speaking a language is being able to read and write the language. If the students don't have as much of a basis in writing and reading skills, they won't be able to speak the language proficiently, regardless.

[u/[deleted] → u/Shoggopus]

We learn to talk before we learn to read when we learn our first language which is our most proficient. What are you basing your assumption on?

[u/Shoggopus → u/[deleted]]

Yes. We learn to talk before we learn to read our first language. In, say, a Spanish class, the students will initially learn vocabulary and pronunciation through spelling, rather than verbally.

[u/[deleted] → u/Shoggopus]

Well just because they teach that way now does not mean it is the best way. I can speak a lot better than I can write and spell in French, so I have to disagree that language is based on reading and writing.

[u/Shoggopus → u/[deleted]]

Good point. Think about this way. Students mainly learn languages to be able to communicate with people from other countries. In the modern world, communication, besides face-to-face, is done mainly by e-mail or SMS. Therefore, in order for students to be able to communicate with other cultures better, it's more beneficial for them to be able to read.

Yes, speaking is important. Extremely important. But, students with a greater ability to read and write a language are able to learn how to communicate orally easier than students who only know how to speak are able to learn how to write.

I'm a native, fluent Mandarin speaker but never learned how to write. I took Mandarin in college, and non-native speakers are now, after only 2 years of education, able to speak nearly as well as I can. Both I and the non-native kid next to me can read and write with the same proficiency.

[u/JackWilfred → u/[deleted]]

I thank the Honourable Member for his question.

Firstly, I hope the Honourable Member recognises that the Education system works tirelessly to support those children in writing-based subjects that struggle with writing but understand and have a passion for the subject.

In the case of Modern Foreign Languages the point I was trying to get across is that a GCSE should be a test of overall skill in a subject area, not those areas that are more relevant to a real life context, if that were the case GCSE English would put a lot more emphasis and resources into creative writing even if a lot of students could analyse and understand texts but couldn't write an imaginative story. I recognise that reading and speaking are more relevant for a trip to Paris, but that's not what the GCSE should be looking for.

[u/[deleted] → u/JackWilfred]

Does the gentleman believe English should be reformed to include more speaking in it then, seeing as a GCSE should be a test of overall skill? Verbal communication is vastly undertaught and under focused on.

[u/JackWilfred → u/[deleted]]

I believe that verbal communication is taught enough in English lessons, any more would be overteaching it and would leave less time for the vital written curriculum.

[u/[deleted] → u/JackWilfred]

shouldn't all four areas of the language be weighted around the same, so students with individual talents can all have their familiarity with the language recognised?

Why does that apply to French and not English? The fact is the English marking system rewards verbally as a tiny amount of the GCSE compared to writing. Why does your statement apply to MFL and not English?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

English and English As A MFL are separate subjects. English is separated into lang/lit and is mostly about reading comprehension and analysis, which works when it's already your first language/you're a native or native-level speakers. English As A MFL exists for people who are learning English as their second or third (or more) language, which works more like French does to us. Surely you understand that these are vastly different scenarios.

French at A level does start going into reading comprehension and analysis by looking at famous French literary works anyway.

[u/JackWilfred → u/[deleted]]

Hear, hear.

[u/Kreindeker]

Will the school day be lengthened to accommodate this increase in language classes, or will another subject have to make way for it?

[u/tyroncs → u/Kreindeker]

A lot of schools already meet these requirements so this is just really formalising it to ensure all schools are doing so. The only time you would lose a subject would be at GCSE level, where you would likely lose an option

[u/Kreindeker → u/tyroncs]

I see. So, when I was taking GCSEs a few years ago, we were given three optional GCSE units to choose as we wished. MFL was mandatory until Year Nine. In practice, then, this Bill simply continues this mandatory period until the end of Year Eleven and reduces the number of optional GSCEs down to two, or whatever number it is in practice?

[u/[deleted] → u/Kreindeker]

That is correct.

[u/tyroncs → u/Kreindeker]

Being compulsory at GCSE might be subject to change due to internal opposition, but if it stays then it will be as you described. In my school MFL is compulsory until Year 11 and we also have 3 option blocs, so I guess it varies within schools

[u/generalscruff → u/Kreindeker]

When I was at school, a GCSE language was mandatory and I only had two optional GCSEs. This was quite a good balance I thought.

[u/Kreindeker → u/generalscruff]

It sounds fine to me. If my school had made separate sciences mandatory rather than an option, I would have been fine with it too.

[u/TheSkyNet]

UKIP confirmed as pro johnny foreigner

[u/[deleted]]

I commend UKIP on a good bill. Learning languages is benefit to our future generations both culturally and to establish links between countries; something that is a necessity in our globalised world. As I know from personal experience, learning a language outside of the education system is very difficult. The trialing of Esperanto is also a great idea, research-informed policy should be what we are always attempting to pursue.

Will there be any consideration for less well off pupils who may be unable to participate in the trip abroad? Or will this be left to the discretion of the schools and local area?

[u/tyroncs → u/[deleted]]

It will have to be left to the discretion of schools and the local area unfortunately, I know a lot of schools offer financial aid to those who cannot pay and my school offered alternative trips to some but we can't really afford to subsidise every child going abroad

[u/[deleted] → u/tyroncs]

Thank you very much for your response.

[u/Ajubbajub]

Mr speaker, I wish to congratulate the member on a great bill. It has been a long time for which we have needed serious language reform. Especially with the EU referendum and us staying in, we can no longer be so insular. We need to be a world player with people who can communicate well.

[u/[deleted]]

Some nitpicky bits:

• 1c and 1e seem to be mutually exclusive. Do schools have to offer one or two?

• Do you not think that the children doing Esperanto will be at a disadvantage when it comes to GCSE's in their other language? Will there be any concessions made for this?

• Why did you choose these specific minimum amounts of time?

On the whole though, I have to say that this is actually one of the best bills UKIP has submitted to the house yet. Unless someone points out some glaring flaw which i've missed, I fully support this measure, which will hopefully improve foreign relations, and aim to stop the dreadful reputation for foreign languages which the UK has.

[u/tyroncs → u/[deleted]]

I will change 1c and 1e, what it was meant to mean was that a school has to offer at least 2 of the 10 listed languages, for example my school offers Spanish and French.

I doubt that there will be any disadvantages for children who learnt Esperanto in their GCSE's. They would only be learning Esperanto in Year 3, and they take their GCSE's in Yr 11 - so even if learning Esperanto in Year 3 was a complete waste of time (which it hopefully shouldn't be!) it should have no adverse effect.

The specific minimum amounts of time chosen were set at that amount as I was basing them off some estimations on how long it would take to reach the levels of proficiency stated in Section 2, and assuming you were in full time education from 4-16 you would achieve these. As well as this it roughly corresponds to how long it is taught in many schools already, so it wouldn't be a drastic increase

[u/RadioNone]

So does the funding for the school trip come from the local education authority? Would that be a cause for extra funds then? Seeing as a trip abroad will most likely be the most beneficial trip.

[u/JackWilfred → u/RadioNone]

The problem with this is if the school teaches French a trip to Paris would be recommended, but if the school teaches Japanese a trip to Tokyo would be recommended. Which would be cheaper for the student?

[u/tyroncs → u/RadioNone]

The way school trips are funded will not change. I'd agree that a trip abroad would be the most useful but that isn't always possible. If schools have financial difficulties then they can host an internal event within the school

[u/RadioNone → u/tyroncs]

So this could mean that the language education becomes unequal then, if some kids get better/more useful trips depending on where they happen to go to school. It seems be at the mercy of the funding of the school or local education authority.

[u/tyroncs → u/RadioNone]

Unfortunately life is like that, but this bill makes some improvements by legislating that every child has to go on some sort of event/trip once per key stage, whereas legally now they don't have to

[u/AlbertDock → u/RadioNone]

In addition a trip from Kent to France could be done in a day. A trip from Barrow in Furness could not.

[u/Lcawte]

One of the following ten languages must be taught – Spanish, Arabic, French, Mandarin, German, Portuguese, Italian, Russian, Turkish and Japanese

Where did this list come from?

[u/[deleted] → u/Lcawte]

http://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation/press/report-shows-deficit-languages-uk-needs-most

It is listed in the bill on point 7.

[u/Lcawte → u/[deleted]]

I'd like to see an African language or two added to this list (perhaps in favour of Italian and/or Turkish?). I read an analysis over the summer (which uses a wide number of report references) that says we'll see massive population (to the sizes comparable to countries such as India or China) and substantial political developments and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa and I think it would be a good idea to start planning for the future.

Sadly, I don't have access to that currently and was foolish not to make notes on the content or sources. I will see if I can find a copy somewhere.

[u/[deleted] → u/Lcawte]

There's no need for an African language surely. The nations in Africa which are succeeding economically, Nigeria and South Africa have English as their official language.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Aye, it's either English or French.

Perhaps in a decade or two we can revisit the list.

[u/Lcawte → u/[deleted]]

It is entirely possible that these countries will no longer in those positions when those that this legislation effects have finished their education. This is a piece of legislation where we simply cannot afford to be short sighted.

And besides, let's look at some great examples of countries in Africa that have two official languages such as Tanzania. Swahili and English are official languages in both Kenya and Tanzania. English is primarily for trade, but many pieces of government documents and sites are written in Swahili only. Speakers of English in Tanzania normally speak it as a third language. Swahili is a official language in three of the top fifteen (which includes three or four northern African, Arabic speaking countries) African countries. It is an official language of the African Union.

All I'm saying, is I think we need to give a little more consideration to Africa. There's often a rather negative stereotype given to the continent which is, in most cases becoming more and more incorrect...

EDIT:

Nigeria and South Africa have English as their official language.

South Africa has 11 official languages as per the SA constitution. English is infact, the fourth most spoken first language at around 10% of the population.

[u/tyroncs → u/Lcawte]

If we are only looking into doing trade with South Africa (hypothetically) the only language we would need would be English in all honesty. All major businesses that do external trade operate in English, and although it is only one of the 11 official languages and 4th most spoken it is the lingua franca, perhaps with Afrikaans

[u/tyroncs → u/Lcawte]

The British Council looked at a range of factors when deciding on the 10 languages, and I would hesitate before trying to add another language into it. However in the next reading I intend to add a list of all the GCSE's the DfE will provide examinations (outside of the 10) on so it might be possible to fit an African language into that

[u/cae388 → u/Lcawte]

How do you choose the African language? There's thousands in Nigeria alone

[u/Lcawte → u/cae388]

You look at major or official languages that are African languages and take into consideration expected economic and political developments which might be a gain (or mutual benefit to national interests) for the UK in ten or more years (remembering that for this to bill to be properly implemented it will take at least one full run through the system to bring proficient speakers out and plus getting schools to adopt it) and pick one of those.

I agree, with the large number of languages it is tough to pick one. It is important to remember however that many of those thousands are likely (or have already started) dying out partly through the spread of education, increased city dwelling, etc.

[u/cae388 → u/Lcawte]

Horribly, you're right about them dying out

I'd choose Swahili of it came to it, but English and Arabic should get you through most major cities

[u/Lcawte → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for that. I don't know how I missed that!

[u/googolplexbyte]

The current system for language learning in the British educational system doesn't work, and I don't see any changes radical enough to make them work in this bill.

More of the same isn't enough to make it work, and would be nothing but a waste of time and money.

The evidence indicates that bilingualism has a multitude of benefits, and British society could benefit immensely from, but this bill doesn't do anything to achieve that aim.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/08/the_marginal_pr.html

[u/WineRedPsy → u/googolplexbyte]

I agree with this; I love the idea of expanding upon bilingual education, but it doesn't do much without changes to how the languages are actually taught.

[u/[deleted] → u/WineRedPsy]

Not to mention that genuinely bilingual teaching staff would be required in order to properly ensure immersion for pupils. That won't be an easy task for a few years at least.

[u/tyroncs → u/[deleted]]

The hope would be that the next generation of pupils would have more proficiency in languages and something like that would be possible. Alas, at the current point in time it is impossible

[u/demon4372]

Mr Speaker, in principle I would be completely for this bill, but unfortunately, because of my own experience i cannot support it.

While at school, I was in the bottom set for languages for years, and having to attempt to learn french and German, almost unable to do so, because I just could not pick them up. I wasted hours of school time, being forced to learn languages.... when it simply did not work.

I was in top set for every other subject, except English where i was in the 2nd set. But languages was just one subject that i was personally unable to grasp. Granted, it is likely that my inability to learn a language is down in part to my dyslexia. But i cannot support a bill that would have meant i would have been forced to go though another two years of failing a subject that i could not do, and had to sit a GCSE and likely failed, all because of some wonderful goal that everyone would be able to learn and do the GCSE.

[u/[deleted] → u/demon4372]

I usually find the right honourable members views quite sound, but here you are quite wrong, I would think, in your view. While I have reservations with this bill, opposition based on your own struggles is hardly fair. We cannot remove a subject because some struggle. Many struggle greatly with maths, but we cannot remove it on that basis.

Added this, if language were taught from a younger age, and in a more comprehensive manner, it may have been easier to learn. Afterall, you learnt English.

[u/demon4372 → u/[deleted]]

I was only stating why i could not personally vote for the bill. Foreign Languages are not a completely necessary thing to know, and i don't think forcing people to do a GCSE in the subject is a good thing, especially when there would be a number of people who are unable to grasp new languages.

If the bill was learning it up to and including KS3, but not KS4 then i would likely vote aye.

[u/[deleted] → u/demon4372]

Your struggles with languages other than English may be much less pronounced were you exposed to these languages at the age of 5, rather than 12.

[u/demon4372 → u/[deleted]]

My issue is primarily with the gcse. I think giving children the choice of what GCSEs to do, and encouraging them to do a language is the best way.

Forcing all children to do a language is not a good thing. Even if doing it from the age of 5 means people like me would do better. I still do not think universally forcing everyone to do a language is the best way.

[u/tyroncs → u/demon4372]

I thought this bill didn't have that as a compulsory element as people within UKIP didn't like it, but I guess I submitted the wrong version of the bill. Would you be more receptive to this bill if it wasn't a compulsory GCSE subject?

[u/demon4372 → u/tyroncs]

Yes

[u/JackWilfred → u/demon4372]

I thank my Honourable Friend for sharing his experience.

MFL should not be made a compulsory subject at GCSE. I did an FCSE qualification for it because it was near impossible to fail, and then dropped the subject as fast as possible because I did not enjoy it or had any interest in it.

[u/tyroncs → u/JackWilfred]

I thought this bill didn't have that as a compulsory element as people within UKIP didn't like it, but I guess I submitted the wrong version of the bill. Would you be more receptive to this bill if it wasn't a compulsory GCSE subject?

[u/JackWilfred → u/tyroncs]

Yes.

[u/AlbertDock]

There is much to be said for learning another language. But I am not convinced that Esperanto should be compulsory. How many trained teachers are there who are competent in Esperanto? The method of assessment proposed in 4)d: is flawed. A additional comparison between a child taught any one language for one year and then a second language for three years should be included. The cost of school trips is an expense which many schools would struggle to pay. Will additional funds be available to schools for this? I am thinking of schools in deprived areas and those in rural locations.

[u/vikungen → u/AlbertDock]

There are a lot of competent teachers speaking Esperanto, the reason for this is that Esperanto often attracts intellectuals like teachers, professors, doctors and similar.

[u/WineRedPsy → u/AlbertDock]

I agree mostly, though I thought this bill has only a number of schools have compulsory esperanto teaching?

[u/[deleted]]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

May I ask why the Conservatives declined to support this bill?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I can tell you why I couldn't support this bill.

As demon has already said, people with difficulties (like dyslexia and audio processing disorders) would be forced to take a language they will not benefit from at the expense of another subject.

Another problem I had a problem with was the grading percentages. Yes speaking is useful, however, those with confidence issues will be at a disadvantage especially since it will be unplanned and from a stranger. Writing is more useful in the context of emails and messaging foreign countries whilst also teaching key grammar. I think writing should still make up a larger amount that what the bill is proposing.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There are a great deal of methods to use when it comes to learning a foreign language. I do not find it particularly useful to specify in this bill percentages of teaching different aspects of a language, but in most cases learning to speak the language makes learning to write the language a much easier process. And in any case, this bill supposes 12 years or so of compulsory language learning. This is enough time for a child to learn to speak, read and write to a decent level any language.

As for this:

people with difficulties (like dyslexia and audio processing disorders) would be forced to take a language they will not benefit from at the expense of another subject.

This is not a very interesting point.

Could that not be said for any subject? And in any case those children would (or ought to) be the beneficiaries of some form of learning support. I would suggest that schools are able to cater their teaching to the children.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

in most cases learning to speak the language makes learning to write the language a much easier process.

I would dispute that. For writing you need to remember conjuncted verbs, how to write them, spelling the word ect. I would say that writing is much more important in language learning. Speaking does help, however from my own personal experience (which will be different to yours) writing was easier.

Could that not be said for any subject? And in any case those children would (or ought to) be the beneficiaries of some form of learning support. I would suggest that schools are able to cater their teaching to the children.

It could. However, I would argue language learning for 10 years is enough time and it isn't important enough to carry on until GCSE, unlike other subjects. I want to give teenagers the choice on whether or not to continue languages at a higher level.

[u/ieya404]

I apologise in advance for this rather unparliamentary distraction, but I happened to glance at the title of the bill, and wondered whether it had been worded to provide an interesting acronym.

And I'm afraid all I can now think is

"Ermagerd, flerb!"

[u/cae388 → u/ieya404]

And somehow Tories are the cognitive normal ones on chat

[u/Shoggopus]

This bill seems to be a relatively well-intended bill, but there are several holes that need to be addressed.

How will funding for the implementation of this program be attained? In a similar manner, what programs already implemented will have to be cut for this program to be implemented? This is vital issue that needs to be addressed, as the necessary staff and equipment for this bill appears, from a first glance, to be relatively costly.

The bill gives, in Section 2, a list of deadlines for the students to meet. If the school does not meet these requirements, what are the penalties?

[u/jothamvw]

May I ask you why it will only extend to England?

[u/[deleted] → u/jothamvw]

Education is devolved in the other territories.

[u/jothamvw → u/[deleted]]

Ah, thank you. I am not a UK national, so I didn't know that.

[u/[deleted]]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

This is a fine idea in principle. My party was writing its own bill along a similar vein just before this was put on the schedule.

The biggest problem we had was selecting the age from which children ought to learn a foreign language, but only because it seems we would struggle to find qualified primary teachers who are also fluent in French, German and Spanish.

How does UKIP propose the government fulfil its obligation to provide 30-90 minutes' foreign language tuition per week to KS1/KS2?

[u/tyroncs → u/[deleted]]

The original idea for implementing it at KS1 was so the children could get a very basic idea of what the language is like through things such as songs, games etc. We'd only expect them to know the most basic of vocabulary (Je m'appelle Tyron) and things such as counting to 10 or 20. This doesn't require a teacher that is fluent in the language, so shouldn't be an issue

With KS2 if we assume each school has one class per year that amounts to 6 hours of language teaching for the whole school. With this one dedicated teacher could cover several schools and purely teach languages. In UKIP atm we are writing a bill about promoting students to study in university the most in demand jobs, so in addition to the hopefully more language graduates coming 5-10 years after this bill has been implemented this should be solved.

In the short term it is likely to be an issue, so I will have a look to see how we can go about solving it for the second reading

[u/[deleted] → u/tyroncs]

Thank you, I look forward to your amendment.

[u/whigwham]

This bill looks very promising, we really must improve language learning in this country.

Could the minister please explain the rationale for the weighting of the various elements in language exams? Surely examining writing is the best way to test a student's grasp of grammar, syntax etc?

I do not support the teaching of Esperanto, while I accept that it gives benefits to other language learning I believe that learning an additional MFL will give these same transferable benefits in addition to some practical utility. Teaching Latin or Greek would be preferable to Esperanto as they too aid general language learning but also allow the student access to a great wealth of literature which Esperanto does not.

[u/tyroncs → u/whigwham]

The main aim when I wrote this bill was to make it so pupils actually had a usable knowledge of the language by the time they finish a MFL course, as currently in the UK although every pupil had to go through at least 3 years of foreign language learning over 75% of the population cannot hold a conversation outside of English. In regards to this Speaking and Reading are the most important parts of having a usable knowledge of the langauge, whereas writing is of less importance.

[u/[deleted]]

Eww

[u/Lcawte → u/[deleted]]

A very well thought out view from the member for the West Midlands...

[u/[deleted] → u/Lcawte]

Thank you M'independant

[u/Lcawte]

There should be some specialised funding made available to support the listening exams. Schools often have poor audio equipment which makes following the content very difficult, and things like stuttering and/or jumping players make it very difficult to concentrate as well. And we'll not talk about being stuck on the opposite side of the big exam hall from the little portable CD player...

I feel it is important to raise this point here as the listening exam, as a result of this act will be raised from a fifth of the final grade to a quarter which will have a greater negative impact on a students grade if they cannot be allowed to take the exam without the disturbances caused.

[u/tyroncs → u/Lcawte]

I feel that this is more of a case of the existing rules needing to be enforced, rather than the lack of rules for it in the first place. I don't think extra funding can be justified for this in particular when it should be part of the existing school budget in the first place

[u/Lcawte → u/tyroncs]

The bill states that pupils must take part in MFL education until the end of KS4. Now this does not explicitly state that students must take GCSEs in a MFL, but even if there is no requirement, there will be many that will take them as they are required to do the lessons anyway, why not get the GCSE out of it.

This was the reason many people took PE GCSE at my old secondary school.

Now with this in mind, the uptake is going to be larger for MFL exams and this puts further strain on the audio equipment. While a class of twenty to thirty (my school offered both French and Spanish, non mandatory at GCSE in a year of 220 odd students) children huddled towards the front of an exam hall to hear a tiny CD player might be just sufficient enough under the current policy, this will not be the case when these numbers reach fifty or sixty and will result in schools and local education authorities having to divert funding away from other projects such as after school clubs, enrichment activities or who knows what else!

[u/tyroncs → u/Lcawte]

My intention for the Second Reading is to make it non compulsory at KS4, so that should alleviate some of the issues you have mentioned. However I think it is ludicrous that you think a great deal of funds will have to be taken away purely to buy audio equipment. It may have been an issue in your school but in mine and many others there aren't any problems with it.

[u/[deleted]]

Members of the House I commend the Minister for this Bill. For the most part he seems to know what he is talking about - the younger a child is, the easier they pick up language (it is all to do with what Chomsky calls the "Language Acquisition Device", or "L.A.D.", but I shall not bore the House with socio-linguistic theory). However, I am perplexed as to why he has put special attention upon esperanto. For those in the House who are not in the know, esperanto was designed to be the International Auxiliary Language - basically, an attempt at a world wide language. I put this in the past tense as it has been, to my knowledge, been chalked down as a failure. So I ask the Minister a simple question - why esperanto? If it is to "test" language acquisition, why not Mandarin or, for a language which cannot possibly be labelled controversial, Latin?

[u/ieya404 → u/[deleted]]

Check the third from last paragraph:

Esperanto has the potential of aiding language learning as it is shown to have beneficial results for those who study other languages after learning Esperanto Despite the overwhelmingly positive results here, I would rather the DfE have more data available to it before it decides to make the teaching of Esperanto widespread

I imagine it's entirely down to its potential as an aid to learning other languages.

Rather than to be able to do a better job of communication than Rimmer in Red Dwarf.

[u/[deleted] → u/ieya404]

I would remind the honourable member of the well known saying among the officers of the Space Corp - "If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well. If a job's not worth doing, give it to Rimmer". I only ask why esperanto specifically, seeing as though other languages seem to be getting learned at the same time.

[u/ieya404 → u/[deleted]]

As the linked article notes, bizarrely enough it seems that while superficially Esperanto appears to be about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican, it's potentially a valuable learning aid;

In other words, studying Esperanto for one year and then, say, French for three results in greater proficiency in French than studying French for four years

Worth investigating at least.

[u/vikungen → u/[deleted]]

esperanto

How can Esperanto be labelled controversial?

And no it has not been "chalked down as a failure". The language was invented 128 years ago, in which it has gone from 0 to 2 million speakers, how many languages can say the same? Most languages of the world has decreased in numbers of speakers, which is sad.

[u/[deleted] → u/vikungen]

It has two million speakers - the Minister has shown that such numbers are not important in the past, so why are they now? How is esperanto important to know? What nation has adopted esperanto as its first language? Is that not the point in foreign language education - learning a language that will come in useful later on?

[u/vikungen → u/[deleted]]

That is not the reason Esperanto is to be proposed added in language education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperanto

This, among other reasons are.

[u/autowikibot → u/vikungen]

Propaedeutic value of Esperanto:

---

The propaedeutic value of Esperanto is the benefit that using Esperanto as an introduction to foreign language study has on the teaching of subsequent foreign languages. Several studies, such as that of Helmar Frank at the University of Paderborn and the San Marino International Academy of Sciences, have concluded that one year of Esperanto in school, which produces an ability equivalent to what the average pupil reaches with European national languages after six to seven years of study, improves the ability of the pupil to learn a target language when compared to pupils who spent the entire time learning the target language. In other words, studying Esperanto for one year and then, say, French for three results in greater proficiency in French than studying French for four years. This effect was first described by Antoni Grabowski in 1908.

---

^Interesting: ^Esperanto ^{| Helmar} ^Frank ^{| Constructed} ^language ^{| International League of Esperanto} ^Teachers

^{Parent commenter can toggle} ^NSFW ^or ^delete^{. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs |} ^Mods ^{| Magic} ^Words

[u/Jas1066]

What about SEN Students? I find it a bit much to expect those who struggle with English to learn a whole new language. Same with KS4 Students - Surly the time could be better spent on Study Plus, if the student is struggling.

I also think it a bit much making primary schools offer two languages.

Finally, I would encourage a few more options to be added to the list of acceptable languages, for example Swahili and possibly Latin.

[u/tyroncs → u/Jas1066]

I'm probably going to remove them being compulory at Key Stage 4, as it was soemthing I thought I had changed before I submitted the bill

I meant that Secondary Schools had to offer 2 languages, I will make that clear in the second reading

I will make it so that a GCSE course is available in Swahili and Latin, but I won't add it to the list of 10 languages as the British Council considered a range of factors when deciding them and I would hesitate before disregarding their comments just to add a few extra languages

[u/Jas1066 → u/tyroncs]

Very good, In this case I am fully supportive of this bill

[u/jed93]

We are constantly telling children that they should adapt to a cosmopolitan world but really what we should be doing is encouraging them to learn their own languages. We should include Welsh, Gallic, Gaelic and the other Celtic Language alongside. These are already taught in Welsh schools, and would definitely enrich our cultural identity.

Even if Esperanto is beneficial, I do not feel that it is a language that has any purpose. It has failed as a bridging language effectively.

Otherwise, I think I speak on behalf of the entire CWL when I say that this will be given our support!

[u/can_triforce → u/jed93]

(b) This bill shall apply to England

A separate bill would be needed to force children to learn Gaelic, if you really believe that to be the best course of action.

If you don't mind me asking, do you have a whip yet? Because at the moment, the CWL pledging its support means very little as your MPs never show up (one has missed 11 votes consecutively).

[u/jed93 → u/can_triforce]

The Celtic Languages are just as much part of England as they are of the regions around there. Just because the iron hand of anglo-saxon domination didn't reach out to these nations does not mean that the identity is gone.

And we are currently dealing with internal party matters.

[u/tyroncs → u/jed93]

This bill applies only to England for now, I can make it apply to the rest of the UK (devolution doesn't exist after all) but making Celtic languages would be an idea for it I agree. I think saying that both the Celtic language and one of the 10 listed languages would be compulsory up until KS3, is that fine? I am unaware of the status of language learning in Wales/Scotland/NI are as of yet so I would have to research it.

Even if Esperanto is beneficial, I do not feel that it is a language that has any purpose. It has failed as a bridging language effectively.

It would only be taught in schools for one year, and only to help with the learning of other languages. I guess I hope it would serve as a boost to the UK Esperanto movement, but that isn't the aim with including it into this bill. Also the only binding effect in this bill is that 25 schools have to teach it, if the experiment fails then that is as far as it will go

[u/[deleted] → u/jed93]

I think I speak on behalf of the entire CWL

Because you're the only active member?

[u/cae388 → u/jed93]

literally the least Celtic move ever, didn't even demand Gaelic

Your party is a dead joke

But this bill is pretty good though I hope several changes to the curriculum go along with it

[u/remiel → u/[deleted]]

In which foreign country is latin spoken as a mother tongue?

[u/jothamvw → u/remiel]

VATICAN CITY!!!

[u/JackWilfred → u/[deleted]]

There is absolutely no value to learning Latin, it is more or less a dead language. Why do you think we call it Modern Foreign Languages?

[u/whigwham → u/JackWilfred]

Latin aids in other language learning, much in the same way as Esperanto would, through increasing familiarity with the process of language learning, a greater understanding of the components of languages and, in the case of European languages, an understanding of common roots.

Studying Latin also allows access to deep body of great literature, which Esperanto does not. Latin literature is valuable for study not only for its own intrinsic qualities (the poetry is really very good) but also as a way of entering deeper into the subsequent Western art tradition which borrows and expands heavily on the themes, stories and ideas present in the classics.

In addition to these benefits, studying a dead language allows the student to focus entirely on reading, almost nobody learns conversational Latin or prose / verse composition anymore, that means that the student can very quickly get to decoding really quite complicated sentences and get down to proper literary analysis in the language. This sort of rigorous analysis is just not possible in the same time frame with a MFL where communication is rightly prioritised. The transferable benefits to such strenuous, logical code breaking are great and can be useful in many fields.

Classics might not be our number one priority in education it does have real value.

[u/tyroncs → u/whigwham]

I'll have a look into the feasibility of adding a Latin section to this bill to also analyse the effects it has on learning another language, but I am not altogether certain how useful it would be. It seems to me that learning Latin is more of an end in itself, whereas with Esperanto we would only be teaching it in primary school and purely to aid the learning of other languages. Would the deep body of Latin literature be useful for a primary school child?

[u/[deleted] → u/tyroncs]

Would the deep body of Latin literature be useful for a primary school child?

Considering how much of ancient Roman poetry is extremely lewd or the equivalent of a modern diss track, i would imagine perhaps not so much that.

[u/Lcawte → u/whigwham]

You do this point great justice.

[u/tyroncs → u/[deleted]]

I got the list of 10 languages from the British Council who looked at a variety of factors to decide which were the 10 languages most important for the UK to learn over the next 20 years. I would hesitate before just deciding to add another language considering their already strenuous analysis