Hello Everyone

I disagree with Paul's view that only native speakers should be trained to teach languages in primary schools for a number of reasons:

Cost:
staffing any programme of learning is in the longer-term always more cost-effective and efficient when there is in-house capacity; this ensures continuity and sustainability.  For primary schools, this means that teaching a language should become an integral part of primary teachers' skills repertoire.  There are some 17 thousand primary schools in England – we will never be able to provide successful language teaching and learning in all of them unless the entire workforce has the necessary skills.  Yes, there is a long way to go before this can be achieved, but every great journey begins with one small step, the commitment to keep putting one foot in front of the other, and not giving up on the goal.

Staffing:
similar to above: also, the very particular context of primary schools (eg small learning communities, close relationships between class teacher and pupils, a variety of specialist knowledge, skills and understanding amongst staff, meaning that teachers can support each other in their professional development across all subjects, not just languages) lends itself extremely well to embedding a language across the curriculum, with many opportunities for reinforcement (for want of a better expression) on a very regular basis throughout the school day/week/term and so on.  This is not to say that seeking support from native speakers for enrichment activities is not a good idea - it is - but primary pedagogy should remain in the hands of primary experts - ie the teachers qualified and experienced in the field (some of whom may in fact be native speakers) - if we get professional development for primary languages right, and embed languages properly into ITE, then primary languages will succeed

There are a significant number of languages graduates in the primary workforce; clearly they have the necessary language skills.  We also have bilingual primary teachers, and those who have acquired language skills in other environments, albeit without formal qualifications.  We do not suggest that only maths graduates should teach primary maths, or English graduates primary English – this would be tantamount to suggesting that only graduates of particular subjects are in a position to teach those subjects at primary school.  Of course we have primary teachers who lack the language skills required – not to mention pedagogic understanding - this is what professional development/ITE is for: to address the diverse needs of teachers to enable them to teach the curriculum, and to ensure successful learning.  

KS2 into KS3:
there are several transition points in children's learning - KS2 into KS3 is just one of them.  The onus for success cannot rely solely on the shoulders of secondary languages departments, but nor should they overlook the efforts and achievements of colleagues and their pupils in primary schools.  We know from the research that close collaboration between primary and secondary, understanding language learning as a continuum of learning rather than individual, stand-alone phases of learning (which is a complete nonsense), and avoiding repetition of key language addressed in the primary school, goes some way to ensuring successful transition.  Having shared goals is equally important – we lack a national understanding and agreement of what exactly a pupil should ideally have achieved by the end of Year 6 – bland, almost throwaway, statements along the lines of ‘some reading and writing’ are insufficient, they are simply far too vague, and fuel confusion at KS2, and problems at KS3.  

We also need to look very carefully at the content of GCSE: if children are to learn from Year 4, there is simply no need to wait 9 years to sit the current GCSE.  Thus, the Programme of Learning at KS3 needs to be reviewed and revised - of course, we need to see the proposed PoS for KS2 first before we can make sensible suggestions for that - ideally, they should be reviewed, revised and published together - it is the only way to ensure continuity of learning, and a community of practitioners and learners all working towards the same goal.

Language:
We have always had the issue of choice of language; there is nothing new here.  Secondary schools have always chosen their own range of languages to offer, based often on what the Head of Department speaks, and on current staff capacity (similar to the situation in primaries).  Increasingly, primary schools may choose to offer the language taught at local secondaries in Year 7, in a bid to ensure continuity in learning.  Of course, before the 2002 KS4 opt out, many secondary schools offered more than one language, providing learners the opportunity to become dual linguists.  This has disappeared in a number of schools, where there is now only a single language on offer.  Ebacc - like it or loathe it – is bringing about a slow, but steady, re-engagement with languages in secondaries where languages fell out of favour – I know a number of schools who are seeking not only to promote KS4 languages (as opposed to actively discouraging them in some cases), but also to re-introduce a choice of language both at Year 7 entry, and as a two-year GCSE option at Year 10.  

The increasing decline of German in primary schools should be a cause for concern for all of us who are passionate about it.  Somewhat paradoxically, here at Manchester, there are always considerably more trainee teachers amongst the general cohort with a minimum GCSE German than Spanish (French remains the most common).  We have a significant number of German/French graduates on the Primary Languages Specialism, and all are disappointed and frustrated by the lack of opportunity in primary schools to teach it.  

Regards
Angela 

________________________________________
From: JISCmail German Studies List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Paul Coggle [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 11 June 2012 18:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Primary languages

I agree with Gisela's point about the need 'to rebuild essential substructures'.

We simply have neither the primary school teachers with the necessary linguistic skills nor the linguists with the primary teaching skills.

In the past I have advocated - to little or no avail - that we should employ native speaker primary school teachers of the required languages (French, German, Spanish, Italian and/or Japanese, Mandarin etc) and train them to teach their mother tongue. This would be a cost-efficient and productive way of providing language skills to our primary school pupils.

The problem would then be - as we have seen in the past - the need to build on these skills in the secondary schools.

We have a long way to go before success can be achieved.

Paul Coggle