top of page
Search

Why ESL* Belongs with the MFL Department, Not English

  • Writer: Alan David Pritchard
    Alan David Pritchard
  • 3 days ago
  • 5 min read

Updated: 2 days ago

ESL-Wise: Blog 1

Why ESL Belongs with MFL, Not English

By Alan David Pritchard


Diverse ESL students in a modern high school classroom participating in language learning

*I’ve chosen to use the term ESL throughout this post, though some teachers may be more familiar with EAL. The difference is mostly regional or policy-based, and both refer to learners developing English alongside other languages.


There are strong pedagogical arguments for placing ESL in the MFL department rather than isolating learners in mainstream English classes.


Walk into almost any school and ask where the ESL provision is housed. Nine times out of ten, the answer will be: "Oh, it sits under English."


At first glance, that seems logical. ESL stands for English as a Second Language, after all. So naturally, it should fall under the English department.


But here’s the thing.


If we pause — really pause — and look at what ESL learners need, what English departments do, and what MFL departments are trained for, a different picture emerges. A clearer one. And, I’d argue, a more compassionate one.


I’ve spent more than three decades moving between EAL, ESL, MFL and English teams. I’ve taught newcomers with zero English, exam-focused students prepping for IGCSE, and native speakers wrestling with Shakespeare. And what that journey has taught me is this:


ESL doesn’t belong with English. It belongs with Modern Foreign Languages.


Here's why — and why it matters so much.

 

1. Language Acquisition ≠ Literary Study

Here’s a simple thought experiment: Imagine you’re learning French. You’ve just started, know a few phrases, maybe a dozen verbs.


Now imagine being asked to write an essay analysing the symbolism in Le Petit Prince.


Absurd, right?


And yet that’s what many ESL learners experience when they’re dropped into English classes designed for native speakers. Classes filled with poetry analysis, extended writing, and abstract thematic discussions — often before learners have grasped how to form a basic sentence.


This isn’t just poor pedagogy. It’s stressful. It’s discouraging. It sends the message that they’re already behind — and probably always will be.


Stephen Krashen, a giant in the field of language acquisition, put it best: language learning flourishes in low-anxiety, meaning-focused environments. It doesn’t happen through pressure or dissection. It happens through comprehensible input — listening, reading, interacting in ways that make sense (Krashen, 1982).


And where do you see that in schools?


In strong MFL classrooms.

 

2. ESL and MFL Speak the Same Language


I don’t just mean linguistically — though there’s that too. I mean pedagogically.

MFL and ESL classrooms share the same foundations:


  • CEFR levels (A1 to C2)

  • Scaffolded speaking tasks

  • Sentence frames and substitution drills

  • Visual prompts

  • High-frequency word banks

  • Repetition for fluency

  • Functional grammar instruction.


In fact, when I walk into an MFL classroom worth its salt, I see exactly what an ESL learner needs: structured routines, targeted input, chances to rehearse before producing, and — crucially — an atmosphere where making mistakes is expected and accepted.


The Bell Foundation (2022) backs this up: ESL learners benefit most when language is taught explicitly — not simply absorbed by osmosis from English texts.

MFL teachers do this every day.

 

3. Language-Rich ≠ Literature-Heavy

I’ve heard it so many times:“Our English department is very language-rich. We do lots of group discussion and creative writing.”


But let’s be clear: “language-rich” doesn’t mean surrounding students with dense literary texts and hoping for the best. For ESL students, language-rich means accessible, functional, abundant language — language they can hear, decode, practise and eventually own.


MFL classrooms are language-rich in this way. Everyone starts from zero. There’s no shame in struggling to conjugate a verb. Nobody’s being asked to analyse metaphor before they’ve learned the past tense.


That sense of collective starting points builds safety. And safety builds participation.

The EEF (2018) makes this crystal clear: ESL progress accelerates when students get planned vocabulary instruction, structured oral practice, and high-quality modelling — the bread and butter of MFL pedagogy.

 

4. MFL Teachers Are Already Equipped

This isn’t about slamming English teachers. I’ve been one. I’ve worked alongside excellent ones. But most of us in English are trained to teach fluent speakers — to nurture interpretation, nuance, and literary voice.


We’re not trained in the mechanics of second language development. Not in the way MFL teachers are.


MFL teachers know how to:

  • Build a sentence from scratch

  • Model pronunciation

  • Introduce past tense with timeline visuals

  • Teach how to ask for help, describe your family, talk about the weather

  • Recycle vocabulary in spirals that deepen understanding


These aren’t “beginner” skills. They’re the foundations of fluency. And they’re exactly what ESL learners need — especially those arriving with little or no English.


If you’ve ever watched an MFL teacher guide Year 7s from “je m’appelle” to full-on roleplays in just a few months, you’ll know what I mean. That’s skilled language teaching.

 

5. The Structural Fit Is Better

It’s not just the pedagogy that aligns — it’s the system.


  • Both MFL and ESL use CEFR to track progress

  • Both rely on diagnostic assessment and flexible grouping

  • Both lean on repetition, visuals, and spoken output

  • Both benefit from shared CPD, shared tools, and shared mindsets


When ESL provision sits inside English, the mismatch shows — in timetabling, grouping, even in how progress is measured. It’s like trying to plug a square peg into a round hole and wondering why it doesn’t quite sit right.


But aligned with MFL, the parts click into place. Shared planning becomes possible. Shared resources become sensible. And students don’t feel like an awkward bolt-on to the “mainstream” — they feel like learners in the right place, with the right support.

 

So Why Hasn’t This Happened Yet?

In short? Tradition. Inertia. Surface logic.


“English = English,” people say. And for years, that’s been enough to settle the matter.

But good education isn’t built on tradition. It’s built on reflection, evidence, and empathy. And when we ask the right question — Where will ESL learners thrive? — the answer becomes hard to ignore.


MFL provides the space, the methods, and the mindset they need.

It’s time we stopped shuffling ESL learners into literary spaces they’re not ready for. Time we stopped hoping they’ll “pick up the language” through texts they barely understand.


It’s time we gave them teachers who know how language is learned.

 

Final Thought: Where Does Your ESL Provision Sit?


If you’re in school leadership, or shaping support for multilingual learners, I encourage you to step back and ask: Is our ESL provision placed where it has the greatest chance of success?


Because structure matters.


When we align pedagogy, environment, and professional expertise, students thrive. And one of the simplest ways to do that is by working more closely with our MFL colleagues.

They already understand how language is learned. They use structured routines, scaffolded tasks, and clear progress measures — the very things ESL learners need.


So instead of attaching ESL to English and hoping it fits, let’s build something that does.

Let’s place ESL alongside MFL — where the methods match, the goals align, and the teaching makes sense.


Because when teachers work together, students do better.


And that’s what matters most.

 

Further Reading


 
 
 

Commentaires

bottom of page