Full Version: Teaching foreign languages in school
I started taking French in 7th grade and took it all through high school. I then majored in French, studied it in graduate school and lived in France. I am a huge proponent of teaching kids foreign language in school.
I was shocked to find out that my daughter's school district cut out the foreign language program at the junior high level. Apparently they did this a few years ago. I was shocked. They say it was simply budget constraints. But I find this hard to believe as our school district is one of the best in the state and we currently have what is probably the largest, newest best high school anywhere around. It got me thinking if it was geared to the MEAPs and teaching to the test. If foreign language is not on those MEAPs, why expend the resources on it.
Teaching foreign languages is extremely important in my opinion. It teaches kids the rules of grammar first and foremost. This helps later in learning how to diagnose your own writing in English. If you don't know what a subject, verb, adjective, pronoun, possessive pronoun, nominalization, agreement, passive voice, conjugation, past and future tense, etc. is--- you can't benefit much from having your own writing critiqued. I find that students I have had myself, don't have a clue what I am saying when I correct something for grammar.
Foreign language is also important because the world is becoming so much smaller. Americans should not assume that the whole world speaks English. It puts us at a real disadvantage in world affairs, business, politics etc.
Question for Debate:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
I was shocked to find out that my daughter's school district cut out the foreign language program at the junior high level. Apparently they did this a few years ago. I was shocked. They say it was simply budget constraints. But I find this hard to believe as our school district is one of the best in the state and we currently have what is probably the largest, newest best high school anywhere around. It got me thinking if it was geared to the MEAPs and teaching to the test. If foreign language is not on those MEAPs, why expend the resources on it.
Teaching foreign languages is extremely important in my opinion. It teaches kids the rules of grammar first and foremost. This helps later in learning how to diagnose your own writing in English. If you don't know what a subject, verb, adjective, pronoun, possessive pronoun, nominalization, agreement, passive voice, conjugation, past and future tense, etc. is--- you can't benefit much from having your own writing critiqued. I find that students I have had myself, don't have a clue what I am saying when I correct something for grammar.
Foreign language is also important because the world is becoming so much smaller. Americans should not assume that the whole world speaks English. It puts us at a real disadvantage in world affairs, business, politics etc.
Question for Debate:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Apr 23 2005, 06:36 AM)
Question for Debate:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
I'm not going to say that it should be required, but I think foreign language should be available and strongly recommended, especially for those students preparing for college.
Texas borders Mexico and the hispanic population is growing. Some knowledge of Spanish would be helpful to people in the Southwest.
On the other hand, marginal students who are struggling with math and English--students who are probably not college bound, might make better use of time than studying foreign language.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
No. The majority of us never leave our own country, especially if you exclude military service. Foreign languages should be taught as electives, much like higher level math and science courses, and any other subject that most of us will never use. I would prefer a dual tiered High School diploma program, with one that means you have met the basic requirements to be employable or to enter technical training schools, and one that means you have taken advanced classes and are likely college bound.
I took French in high school and Spanish in college, can't say that either has made a differece in my life.
Other's experiences may vary.
While I certainly think it would be beneficial for children to learn and be taught foreign languages, I cannot firmly stand behind my belief when we have kids who still do not know English. Children are slipping through the cracks and getting away with poor grades in Language Arts (or English depending on the name your School Board has chosen), and it simply would be foolish to hoist another language on them without a strong foundation in their native tongue.
My feelings on English aside I think children should learn another language. It has been proven children who know another language have a higher IQ and score higher on standardized tests such as SATs than those who know only one language. It also establishes a good foundation with which to expand if they enter into a field such as business, medicine or advertising.
I was required to have three credits in another language and I chose German and I still use it in my work routinely, does it mean I would have entered a field where it were necessary? No. But it did increase my ability to decipher phrases from foreign language. With two languages based on Latin (English and German) it helped me learn other languages much, much quicker. So it does become more beneficial to learn another language in high school rather as to spend your time in some kind of cooking class discussing a recipe no one will remember in three years.
My feelings on English aside I think children should learn another language. It has been proven children who know another language have a higher IQ and score higher on standardized tests such as SATs than those who know only one language. It also establishes a good foundation with which to expand if they enter into a field such as business, medicine or advertising.
I was required to have three credits in another language and I chose German and I still use it in my work routinely, does it mean I would have entered a field where it were necessary? No. But it did increase my ability to decipher phrases from foreign language. With two languages based on Latin (English and German) it helped me learn other languages much, much quicker. So it does become more beneficial to learn another language in high school rather as to spend your time in some kind of cooking class discussing a recipe no one will remember in three years.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
Yes. In fact, it would probably benefit children by being required to take more than one. Spanish should be mandatory. The Spanish speaking population in this country is only getting bigger and teaching kids to speak it now can only help them and future generations.
Yes. In fact, it would probably benefit children by being required to take more than one. Spanish should be mandatory. The Spanish speaking population in this country is only getting bigger and teaching kids to speak it now can only help them and future generations.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
Depending on the definition of significant, yes.
First of all, in a world with many different languages a language requirement makes it possible for students to gain a greater understanding of another language and culture. This is a seed for another skill that will become increasingly valuable, not less valuable as the years go on. Our society and our economy is becoming increasingly diverse. The ability to speak another language makes a person more valuable in the work force.
Also, learning a language is a good exercise in learning language skills. One thing that happens when you study a foreign language is that you better understand langauge and you become better at your first language. A lot of things taught in schools are there not just because the specific subject is going to have direct practical value for the student, but also because learning the subject helps develop better learning skills.
Another good example of this is the arts. Just because you are not going to grow up to be an artist does not mean that art does not increase a person's chances of success in the work place and career.
Depending on the definition of significant, yes.
First of all, in a world with many different languages a language requirement makes it possible for students to gain a greater understanding of another language and culture. This is a seed for another skill that will become increasingly valuable, not less valuable as the years go on. Our society and our economy is becoming increasingly diverse. The ability to speak another language makes a person more valuable in the work force.
Also, learning a language is a good exercise in learning language skills. One thing that happens when you study a foreign language is that you better understand langauge and you become better at your first language. A lot of things taught in schools are there not just because the specific subject is going to have direct practical value for the student, but also because learning the subject helps develop better learning skills.
Another good example of this is the arts. Just because you are not going to grow up to be an artist does not mean that art does not increase a person's chances of success in the work place and career.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
Why start at junior high? Children learn foreign languages better when they are younger, and if we truly want children to learn a language and be able to use it, I would be more in favor of starting foreign language classes in elementary school.
I think its incredibly important for everyone to learn a foreign language, because I feel that it betters our understanding of people and culture. In language, there is nothing solid, even some nouns aren't easily translated. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but it gives us a new perspective and a different view point if not all words mean the same thing.
I also think that grammar is crucial, and something that is lacking in education. Learning another language helps you to identify different parts of speech, and, as Haleyanne pointed out, aides in writing in English.
Why start at junior high? Children learn foreign languages better when they are younger, and if we truly want children to learn a language and be able to use it, I would be more in favor of starting foreign language classes in elementary school.
I think its incredibly important for everyone to learn a foreign language, because I feel that it betters our understanding of people and culture. In language, there is nothing solid, even some nouns aren't easily translated. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but it gives us a new perspective and a different view point if not all words mean the same thing.
I also think that grammar is crucial, and something that is lacking in education. Learning another language helps you to identify different parts of speech, and, as Haleyanne pointed out, aides in writing in English.
The best possible situation would be to have children exposed to many languages from birth. That's hard to do without a multilingual family, so the next best thing would be to have it start during the lowest levels of public school. At this level, it doesn't have to be anything fancy; just a few common words that kids can pick up quickly.
In junior high school, I would suggest a minimum of one year in a major living language; probably one that is related to English in some way, either a Germanic or a Romantic language. French, German, or Spanish, most likely. Two or three years in one of these languages, and/or a year in a major living language from another language group (Japanese or Russian, for example) or a year in Latin might be options for advanced students.
In high school, I would suggest a minimum of one year in a major living language at a somewhat more advanced level. I would not require anything more for all students. Some students are just not going to be able to advance very far in foreign languages, just as some will never advance very far in mathematics. More advanced students would have the same options as those I have listed above. Some young people have a real knack for languages, and it would be great to allow them to use that talent.
I know that I am asking schools to do a lot, and I know that they face financial challenges, and I know that we ask young people to study a large number of subjects, and that all of them are important. What I have suggested above may not be practical for very many schools, but it seems a laudable goal.
One of my regrets is that I took only one junior high school level class in Spanish, so I have only a very basic knowledge of it at the simplest level. I do not wish others to share that regret.
In junior high school, I would suggest a minimum of one year in a major living language; probably one that is related to English in some way, either a Germanic or a Romantic language. French, German, or Spanish, most likely. Two or three years in one of these languages, and/or a year in a major living language from another language group (Japanese or Russian, for example) or a year in Latin might be options for advanced students.
In high school, I would suggest a minimum of one year in a major living language at a somewhat more advanced level. I would not require anything more for all students. Some students are just not going to be able to advance very far in foreign languages, just as some will never advance very far in mathematics. More advanced students would have the same options as those I have listed above. Some young people have a real knack for languages, and it would be great to allow them to use that talent.
I know that I am asking schools to do a lot, and I know that they face financial challenges, and I know that we ask young people to study a large number of subjects, and that all of them are important. What I have suggested above may not be practical for very many schools, but it seems a laudable goal.
One of my regrets is that I took only one junior high school level class in Spanish, so I have only a very basic knowledge of it at the simplest level. I do not wish others to share that regret.
My four year old daughter will be in Russian immersion school this fall. My wife is Russian. My wife speaks 4 languages fluently, meaning she can converse on complex issues, with the exception of slang, in those languages. She speaks German, English, French and English. She learned French as an immersion subject in Russia, and speaks "as a native speaker"- she learned English in one year, and she speaks it so good, most can not pin point what the accent is- most think it is a French accent.
My mother-in-law and wife have been completely active in the same programs/learning for my son and daughter- my daughter speaks the same four languages, and goes to Japanese Kumon accelerated school as well- she is four, and is doing the same math as a 7 year old in American school.
I wish I could link some of the info from the immersion school here- but it is on handouts I recieve as a parent.
Suffice it to say- I think ALL american schools should have immersion programs. EVERY study shows that the children with second language do BETTER at the primary language than the students that only learn one language.
There is another group of studies that show that because immersion schools do not usually recieve funding for thier programs- they must raise the funds themselves- the parents are more involved with the school, and therefore, the students have WAY higher scores in every area.
I think it is a great disservice to our children with our national xenophobia of learning other languages.
I just wish as was as smart as the rest of my family- I am tired of being the resident knuckle dragger with only one and a half languages and only one four year degree LOL
My mother-in-law and wife have been completely active in the same programs/learning for my son and daughter- my daughter speaks the same four languages, and goes to Japanese Kumon accelerated school as well- she is four, and is doing the same math as a 7 year old in American school.
I wish I could link some of the info from the immersion school here- but it is on handouts I recieve as a parent.
Suffice it to say- I think ALL american schools should have immersion programs. EVERY study shows that the children with second language do BETTER at the primary language than the students that only learn one language.
There is another group of studies that show that because immersion schools do not usually recieve funding for thier programs- they must raise the funds themselves- the parents are more involved with the school, and therefore, the students have WAY higher scores in every area.
I think it is a great disservice to our children with our national xenophobia of learning other languages.
I just wish as was as smart as the rest of my family- I am tired of being the resident knuckle dragger with only one and a half languages and only one four year degree LOL
I completely agree with cruising, victoria and kimpossible. There is so much to be gained from learning language. The fact that most of us are not fluent in another language reflects poorly on our country IMO.
Spanish is important but I also think people forget how important French is. Many of the developing countries in Africa and the middle east are all french speaking.
Kimpossible makes a great point about how different languages use words differently. A common example is how the romantic languages use the verb "take" when speaking about a decision: They take a decision and We make a decision.
Spanish is important but I also think people forget how important French is. Many of the developing countries in Africa and the middle east are all french speaking.
Kimpossible makes a great point about how different languages use words differently. A common example is how the romantic languages use the verb "take" when speaking about a decision: They take a decision and We make a decision.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
I have arrived at the conclusion <BFG> that languages should be electives at the grade and high school levels. Here's the reasoning:
Some people have language skills, while others have math skills, as their main strengths. I'm one of the language types, and while a certain level of math was a required study in grade and high schools, I did not do well in the subject. Quite a bit of English is already required of students. For those who don't do well with language, requiring a foreign tongue would be like shoving a language type into calculus.
I've tried to tackle French and Spanish, but know what? I am not interested in these languages. I like English, with its absurd contradictions in spelling and grammar. To me it is the ultimate language game.
The arguments about communicating with the rest of the world don't hold up when communication is important. We will figure out ways to communicate when it is important. The UN uses translators all the time, and the reason is clear: Nobody can know all the languages of the world. There are just too many of them. Thus, technology works toward the universal translator -- and I bet such a thing shows up when a market develops.
Besides, what if Chinese becomes the dominant language? We can throw our Latin-based languages away then.
Oh, did I mention that English is a blend of Germanic and Latin languages? That's pretty edited to remove an attempt to bypass the profanity filter
cool. Also, it's confusing.
Anyway, keep languages other than English electives. The focus ought to be on English, as this language needs a lot of focus. It also deserves the focus, not because of politics, but because English is unique in the world.
[This message has been brought to you by TEMA, The English Majors of America.]
I have arrived at the conclusion <BFG> that languages should be electives at the grade and high school levels. Here's the reasoning:
Some people have language skills, while others have math skills, as their main strengths. I'm one of the language types, and while a certain level of math was a required study in grade and high schools, I did not do well in the subject. Quite a bit of English is already required of students. For those who don't do well with language, requiring a foreign tongue would be like shoving a language type into calculus.
I've tried to tackle French and Spanish, but know what? I am not interested in these languages. I like English, with its absurd contradictions in spelling and grammar. To me it is the ultimate language game.
The arguments about communicating with the rest of the world don't hold up when communication is important. We will figure out ways to communicate when it is important. The UN uses translators all the time, and the reason is clear: Nobody can know all the languages of the world. There are just too many of them. Thus, technology works toward the universal translator -- and I bet such a thing shows up when a market develops.
Besides, what if Chinese becomes the dominant language? We can throw our Latin-based languages away then.
Oh, did I mention that English is a blend of Germanic and Latin languages? That's pretty edited to remove an attempt to bypass the profanity filter
cool. Also, it's confusing.Anyway, keep languages other than English electives. The focus ought to be on English, as this language needs a lot of focus. It also deserves the focus, not because of politics, but because English is unique in the world.
[This message has been brought to you by TEMA, The English Majors of America.]
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Apr 24 2005, 08:37 AM)
Some people have language skills, while others have math skills, as their main strengths. I'm one of the language types, and while a certain level of math was a required study in grade and high schools, I did not do well in the subject. Quite a bit of English is already required of students. For those who don't do well with language, requiring a foreign tongue would be like shoving a language type into calculus.
I disagree with the concept of "types" of people. From a personal perspective I've always been most interested in science, yet I am likely as, if not more, capable in math, these subjects are what I've always been known for. On top of that if the standarized tests are to be trusted my verbal skills are better than either subject... and of course I am also interested in history and can usually do well in such a course with (very) minimal studying.
The point is not that I am in some way special, as a tutor I feel pretty strongly about this. If you want to learn, you can, simple as that.
There is no such thing as an innate "weakness" in any intellectual pursuit for the average healthy person. I've seen people who say they hate and fear math do just fine with clear instruction.
I took many years of foreign language, I could probably still stumble through reading Spanish but the reason I'm not fluent is not some sort of mental block, it's that I didn't practice
I does not take a special type of person to learn a second language and interest is not the same as potential to learn/
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Apr 23 2005, 09:36 PM)
I started taking French in 7th grade and took it all through high school. I then majored in French, studied it in graduate school and lived in France. I am a huge proponent of teaching kids foreign language in school.
I was shocked to find out that my daughter's school district cut out the foreign language program at the junior high level. Apparently they did this a few years ago. I was shocked. They say it was simply budget constraints. But I find this hard to believe as our school district is one of the best in the state and we currently have what is probably the largest, newest best high school anywhere around. It got me thinking if it was geared to the MEAPs and teaching to the test. If foreign language is not on those MEAPs, why expend the resources on it.
The reason prescriptive grammar is often neglected in L1 (first language) studies is because it is based upon a failed premise. Chomsky had a few things to say about this. Academics can't prescribe the grammar. They can merely define it in the most general of terms according to normative usage.
When you correct a student's grammar, you are ignoring the most basic aspect of modern linguistics. Languages are not prescriptive. The most you can do is attempt a descriptive analysis. And even then, you are only describing one person's language.
Foreign language is also important because the world is becoming so much smaller. Americans should not assume that the whole world speaks English. It puts us at a real disadvantage in world affairs, business, politics etc.
Question for Debate:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
I was shocked to find out that my daughter's school district cut out the foreign language program at the junior high level. Apparently they did this a few years ago. I was shocked. They say it was simply budget constraints. But I find this hard to believe as our school district is one of the best in the state and we currently have what is probably the largest, newest best high school anywhere around. It got me thinking if it was geared to the MEAPs and teaching to the test. If foreign language is not on those MEAPs, why expend the resources on it.
QUOTE
Teaching foreign languages is extremely important in my opinion. It teaches kids the rules of grammar first and foremost. This helps later in learning how to diagnose your own writing in English. If you don't know what a subject, verb, adjective, pronoun, possessive pronoun, nominalization, agreement, passive voice, conjugation, past and future tense, etc. is--- you can't benefit much from having your own writing critiqued. I find that students I have had myself, don't have a clue what I am saying when I correct something for grammar.
The reason prescriptive grammar is often neglected in L1 (first language) studies is because it is based upon a failed premise. Chomsky had a few things to say about this. Academics can't prescribe the grammar. They can merely define it in the most general of terms according to normative usage.
When you correct a student's grammar, you are ignoring the most basic aspect of modern linguistics. Languages are not prescriptive. The most you can do is attempt a descriptive analysis. And even then, you are only describing one person's language.
Foreign language is also important because the world is becoming so much smaller. Americans should not assume that the whole world speaks English. It puts us at a real disadvantage in world affairs, business, politics etc.
Question for Debate:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
No. Junior high and high schools have enough on their plate without expecting their students to study a foreign language which only a precious few students will ever come close to becoming fluent in. As an elective, I see no problems. Of course, I also see no problems with exterior commode design being offered as an elective so who really cares?
On the other hand, I would be very much in favor of a standard of fluency in a foreign language being a requirement for university students. Nobody needs a university diploma so the attainment of one should mean something other than what it does today. Graduates of a university should be conversant in at least one foreign language because that is the bare minimum that I would personally consider essential as a definition of a high standard of education. High school students do not need to meet that standard because they are not expected to become university graduates.
College and Jr High is absolutely too late to learn a language fluently. The real cut off is around 7 for truly having the second or third or whatever languages fluently.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~monicafitz/stages.htm#criticalage
Instead of having the language as a requirement for graduation from college- it should be a requirement for graduation from 1rst grade!
http://home.cogeco.ca/~monicafitz/stages.htm#criticalage
Instead of having the language as a requirement for graduation from college- it should be a requirement for graduation from 1rst grade!
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 25 2005, 05:18 PM)
College and Jr High is absolutely too late to learn a language fluently. The real cut off is around 7 for truly having the second or third or whatever languages fluently.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~monicafitz/stages.htm#criticalage
Instead of having the language as a requirement for graduation from college- it should be a requirement for graduation from 1rst grade!
http://home.cogeco.ca/~monicafitz/stages.htm#criticalage
Instead of having the language as a requirement for graduation from college- it should be a requirement for graduation from 1rst grade!
And then there are all of those people who have learned foreign languages fluently long after they were seven years old...
The argument that languages can only be learned fluently by very young children has been proven wrong so many times that it isn't even worth arguing against.
What young children do have is what linguists call a LAD, or Language Acquisition Device, which is a hypothetical black box located in the brain which makes the learning of a language an instinct. Nobody needs to teach a child how to learn a language. Leave them to their own devices and given enough verbal input, and they'll invent their own, complete with a complex syntax and grammar.
This doesn't mean that older people can't become fluent in a language. It just means that it isn't instinctual. Some work will be required, but it can be done. We know this because so many have done it.
Yes, I myself am an example of learning a language at a very young age- but without accent is very, very rare and usually with great effort.
I know an FBI agent that learned Russian in his 20s, and once he became fluent (about 5 years) he went to special coaches to fix his accent- something my daughter will have before she is seven! My wife is an extremely gifted linguist with several languages- but only those languages she learned before 7 does she lack an accent and truly get all the slang and sentence structure. She has spoken almost exclusively English for 6 years and still has an accent and has problems with the subtlety of the sentence structures.
So yes, technically, you can learn the language later- but will never be as proficient as someone that learns it before seven.
I know an FBI agent that learned Russian in his 20s, and once he became fluent (about 5 years) he went to special coaches to fix his accent- something my daughter will have before she is seven! My wife is an extremely gifted linguist with several languages- but only those languages she learned before 7 does she lack an accent and truly get all the slang and sentence structure. She has spoken almost exclusively English for 6 years and still has an accent and has problems with the subtlety of the sentence structures.
So yes, technically, you can learn the language later- but will never be as proficient as someone that learns it before seven.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
No. The benefits simply do not outweigh the costs. I am all for having foreign language as an elective for those districts that can afford it.
Personally, I agree with BillAZ55 here when he states that knowing a foreign language (in my case, French) has not significantly impacted my life. An informal poll of those in my office reveals that none of us is fluent in a foreign language. So I'd assume that it hasn't impacted their lives either.
That being said, learning is a reward in and of itself. Learning a new language should never be deterred, but neither is it necessary for Americans. For those in Europe and other places, where multiple languages are in close proximity, the utility of a second language is different.
More power to those who know more than one language, but in the US, it simply isn't necessary.
No. The benefits simply do not outweigh the costs. I am all for having foreign language as an elective for those districts that can afford it.
Personally, I agree with BillAZ55 here when he states that knowing a foreign language (in my case, French) has not significantly impacted my life. An informal poll of those in my office reveals that none of us is fluent in a foreign language. So I'd assume that it hasn't impacted their lives either.
That being said, learning is a reward in and of itself. Learning a new language should never be deterred, but neither is it necessary for Americans. For those in Europe and other places, where multiple languages are in close proximity, the utility of a second language is different.
More power to those who know more than one language, but in the US, it simply isn't necessary.
I hearily agree with the following:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
In my opinion, immersion in a living language starting in 2nd or 3rd grade, once basic English communication has been confirmed.
Disclosure - I should note that I'm also demanding that children be taught phonics at these ages. No point teaching the current "natural language" because then kids are just going to half speak 2 languages poorly.
So, phonics for solid English, second language from grades 2-5, third language in Jr. High. One dead language in high school - Latin or Greek (maybe Aramaic or Hebrew in a religious school). First year university literature should require reading of a few classics in their original tongue, whether living or dead.
I empathize with those of you who feel that you don't have the love or knack for languages, but just like music or any other 'knack,' if you are exposed early enough, you will learn it. You may even love it, and you'll certainly speak and write better English as a result. As for those of you who feel it isn't necessary, you are probably right, and our culture is so much poorer as a result.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Apr 23 2005, 07:40 PM)
Why start at junior high? Children learn foreign languages better when they are younger, and if we truly want children to learn a language and be able to use it, I would be more in favor of starting foreign language classes in elementary school.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Apr 23 2005, 10:44 PM)
The best possible situation would be to have children exposed to many languages from birth. That's hard to do without a multilingual family, so the next best thing would be to have it start during the lowest levels of public school. At this level, it doesn't have to be anything fancy; just a few common words that kids can pick up quickly.
In junior high school, I would suggest a minimum of one year in a major living language; probably one that is related to English in some way, either a Germanic or a Romantic language. French, German, or Spanish, most likely. Two or three years in one of these languages, and/or a year in a major living language from another language group (Japanese or Russian, for example) or a year in Latin might be options for advanced students.
In junior high school, I would suggest a minimum of one year in a major living language; probably one that is related to English in some way, either a Germanic or a Romantic language. French, German, or Spanish, most likely. Two or three years in one of these languages, and/or a year in a major living language from another language group (Japanese or Russian, for example) or a year in Latin might be options for advanced students.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
College and Jr High is absolutely too late to learn a language fluently. The real cut off is around 7 for truly having the second or third or whatever languages fluently.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
In my opinion, immersion in a living language starting in 2nd or 3rd grade, once basic English communication has been confirmed.
Disclosure - I should note that I'm also demanding that children be taught phonics at these ages. No point teaching the current "natural language" because then kids are just going to half speak 2 languages poorly.
So, phonics for solid English, second language from grades 2-5, third language in Jr. High. One dead language in high school - Latin or Greek (maybe Aramaic or Hebrew in a religious school). First year university literature should require reading of a few classics in their original tongue, whether living or dead.
I empathize with those of you who feel that you don't have the love or knack for languages, but just like music or any other 'knack,' if you are exposed early enough, you will learn it. You may even love it, and you'll certainly speak and write better English as a result. As for those of you who feel it isn't necessary, you are probably right, and our culture is so much poorer as a result.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ May 4 2005, 11:38 AM)
In my opinion, immersion in a living language starting in 2nd or 3rd grade, once basic English communication has been confirmed.
Disclosure - I should note that I'm also demanding that children be taught phonics at these ages. No point teaching the current "natural language" because then kids are just going to half speak 2 languages poorly.
So, phonics for solid English, second language from grades 2-5, third language in Jr. High. One dead language in high school - Latin or Greek (maybe Aramaic or Hebrew in a religious school). First year university literature should require reading of a few classics in their original tongue, whether living or dead.
I empathize with those of you who feel that you don't have the love or knack for languages, but just like music or any other 'knack,' if you are exposed early enough, you will learn it. You may even love it, and you'll certainly speak and write better English as a result. As for those of you who feel it isn't necessary, you are probably right, and our culture is so much poorer as a result.
Disclosure - I should note that I'm also demanding that children be taught phonics at these ages. No point teaching the current "natural language" because then kids are just going to half speak 2 languages poorly.
So, phonics for solid English, second language from grades 2-5, third language in Jr. High. One dead language in high school - Latin or Greek (maybe Aramaic or Hebrew in a religious school). First year university literature should require reading of a few classics in their original tongue, whether living or dead.
I empathize with those of you who feel that you don't have the love or knack for languages, but just like music or any other 'knack,' if you are exposed early enough, you will learn it. You may even love it, and you'll certainly speak and write better English as a result. As for those of you who feel it isn't necessary, you are probably right, and our culture is so much poorer as a result.
Is there something that justifies teaching kids four languages? Is everyone going to be an interpreter, or work for the CIA? How many extra teachers will this take to teach kids these skills? What benefit to society does it bring if everyone is conversant in Latin or Aramaic?
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 4 2005, 02:03 PM)
Is there something that justifies teaching kids four languages? Is everyone going to be an interpreter, or work for the CIA? How many extra teachers will this take to teach kids these skills? What benefit to society does it bring if everyone is conversant in Latin or Aramaic?
For college bound kids, yes. When I was in graduate some graduate degrees required knowledge of foreign languages. Some Ph.D. programs required two.
In the Southwest and places like Florida, I think a some knowledge of Spanish might be helpful.
I'm not so sure about kids who don't have the academic ability for college. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned placing students on a vocational or college bound track. I am not totally against this idea, but think it has potential for abuse. Tracking, if we ever did this, should be flexible enough to allow for "late bloomers" to move off the vocational onto the college prep track.
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 4 2005, 03:03 PM)
Is there something that justifies teaching kids four languages? Is everyone going to be an interpreter, or work for the CIA? How many extra teachers will this take to teach kids these skills? What benefit to society does it bring if everyone is conversant in Latin or Aramaic?
I believe that it's a mistake to teach children only what they will "need". Nobody "need" an knowledge of art, or understanding of classical music, or appreciation of good literature or poetry. The ideal is to create a well-rounded individual, not a working unit with a superficial set of skills in a very narrow area. If we follow this route, soon we'll stop teaching kids arithmetics - who needs it now when everyone has a calculator? Ditto for writing skills - everybody knows how to type, but how many of us have a readable handwriting? Strictly utilitarian education eventually leads to a dimwit populace, easily manipulated, IMO.
A benefit to society is significant: by teaching languages we expose kids to a foreign culture - and the positives of that are obvious - better understanding between nations, etc. Similarly, knowledge of history leads to realization that everything in the world repeats itself; therefore that will lead to more educated and sophisticated electorate.
QUOTE(English Horn @ May 4 2005, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 4 2005, 03:03 PM)
Is there something that justifies teaching kids four languages? Is everyone going to be an interpreter, or work for the CIA? How many extra teachers will this take to teach kids these skills? What benefit to society does it bring if everyone is conversant in Latin or Aramaic?
I believe that it's a mistake to teach children only what they will "need". Nobody "need" an knowledge of art, or understanding of classical music, or appreciation of good literature or poetry. The ideal is to create a well-rounded individual, not a working unit with a superficial set of skills in a very narrow area. If we follow this route, soon we'll stop teaching kids arithmetics - who needs it now when everyone has a calculator? Ditto for writing skills - everybody knows how to type, but how many of us have a readable handwriting? Strictly utilitarian education eventually leads to a dimwit populace, easily manipulated, IMO.
A benefit to society is significant: by teaching languages we expose kids to a foreign culture - and the positives of that are obvious - better understanding between nations, etc. Similarly, knowledge of history leads to realization that everything in the world repeats itself; therefore that will lead to more educated and sophisticated electorate.
The benefits are obvious? Stating that doesn't make it so. What benefit does the guy working in Walmart in Sioux City, Iowa gain from learning French or German? Does every kid in America need an understanding of foreign cultures? You might say that the answer is obviously yes, but I would challenge that. Where's the evidence that French workers are more productive than American workers? Or that they are happier for knowing about other cultures?
Again, I am not arguing that learning is only useful if it is utilitarian. However, there are money concerns involved in educating every American child in multiple languages. As with anything the government does, it had better be justifiable.
I consider myself fairly well-educated and well-informed. I took French starting in the 6th or 7th grade until the 11th grade. I can unequivocally state that learning French hasn't made a whit of difference in my life (except for perhaps picking up some very limited Italian briefly a few years ago).
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 5 2005, 08:53 AM)
The benefits are obvious? Stating that doesn't make it so. What benefit does the guy working in Walmart in Sioux City, Iowa gain from learning French or German? Does every kid in America need an understanding of foreign cultures? You might say that the answer is obviously yes, but I would challenge that. Where's the evidence that French workers are more productive than American workers? Or that they are happier for knowing about other cultures?
Again, I am not arguing that learning is only useful if it is utilitarian. However, there are money concerns involved in educating every American child in multiple languages. As with anything the government does, it had better be justifiable.
I agree with Amlord on this. I took Japanese in high school. Living on the west coast, it was touted as a fundamental need for business and commerce in the 21st century (this was in the early 80's).
Have I used it since? Not a lick. I might have been marginally better off taking spanish or german, but I did pretty well picking that up when I was stationed in Germany right after high school.
I have no problem offering foreign languages in school as electives, and I will encourage my kids to take one, if their course load won't be unduly strained. But until subjects that Americans as a whole suffer a lack of knowledge of, such as civics and economics, I'm not too concerned about our society being multi-lingual. Nice, yes. Necessity? No.
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 5 2005, 08:53 AM)
The benefits are obvious? Stating that doesn't make it so. What benefit does the guy working in Walmart in Sioux City, Iowa gain from learning French or German? Does every kid in America need an understanding of foreign cultures? You might say that the answer is obviously yes, but I would challenge that. Where's the evidence that French workers are more productive than American workers? Or that they are happier for knowing about other cultures?
Again, I am not arguing that learning is only useful if it is utilitarian. However, there are money concerns involved in educating every American child in multiple languages. As with anything the government does, it had better be justifiable.
I consider myself fairly well-educated and well-informed. I took French starting in the 6th or 7th grade until the 11th grade. I can unequivocally state that learning French hasn't made a whit of difference in my life (except for perhaps picking up some very limited Italian briefly a few years ago).
Again, I am not arguing that learning is only useful if it is utilitarian. However, there are money concerns involved in educating every American child in multiple languages. As with anything the government does, it had better be justifiable.
I consider myself fairly well-educated and well-informed. I took French starting in the 6th or 7th grade until the 11th grade. I can unequivocally state that learning French hasn't made a whit of difference in my life (except for perhaps picking up some very limited Italian briefly a few years ago).
Amlord, we can not take an individual examples and apply them to the general population. I always, always hated chemistry, always struggled with it, couldn't stand it; passed it in High School, never dealt with it again since, and the lack of knowledge of what comes after what in the periodic table of elements didn't make a whit of difference in my life. However, my particular example is certainly shouldn't be grounds for dropping chemistry from HS curriculum.
For a Walmart guy from Sioux City Iowa many things that are taught in school will never come into play... history, literature, most of science classes, etc.
What is the point, the ultimate objective of High School education? Is it to create a worker with a set of skills for obtaining maximum productivity in the workplace, or to try to create a more or less well-rounded individual? What you're arguing is that if certain knowledge is not beneficial to increasing productivity, it has to be an elective... What kind of citizenry we'll have if that would be the case?
Also it's a mistake (IMHO) to think that there's an "unused" knowledge. When I changed my careers and went from music to computer science, the understanding of forms and structures of classical music helped me to "get" some abstract concepts of programming such as Object-Oriented design faster than some of my peers.
P.S. Ahh, CruisingRam beat me to it! I was just about to post this, which would prove that you, Amlord, owe at least part of your present brainpower and intelligence to those French lessons that you took in HS!
There is a very significant advantage for children learning foreign languages- they speak better english, score higher on SATs and score consistantly higher on IQ tests. EVery single study shows that stimulating the brain between the ages of 6 weeks and four years advances the brain developement- so, we will just have smarter children, regardless if you "use" the language or not!
Amlord- you may have never used the French- but your brian did- it made you a smarter person!
http://www.mctlc.org/newvisions/legscores.html
Amlord- you may have never used the French- but your brian did- it made you a smarter person!
http://www.mctlc.org/newvisions/legscores.html
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 5 2005, 10:57 AM)
There is a very significant advantage for children learning foreign languages- they speak better english, score higher on SATs and score consistantly higher on IQ tests. EVery single study shows that stimulating the brain between the ages of 6 weeks and four years advances the brain developement- so, we will just have smarter children, regardless if you "use" the language or not!
Amlord- you may have never used the French- but your brian did- it made you a smarter person!
http://www.mctlc.org/newvisions/legscores.html
Amlord- you may have never used the French- but your brian did- it made you a smarter person!
http://www.mctlc.org/newvisions/legscores.html
I never said I didn't learn French. As with most things academic, I was a top student. I still remember most of the vocabulary and grammar rules from French, even after 15 or more years of non-exposure.
My point was that I have not used it since I stepped out of French class when I was 16. I also believe I was a better learner at the age of 10 (before beginning my French lessons) than I was at 16 (when I stopped). Now that certainly has nothing to do with French class, but I was an excellent student before being exposed to French. It was not the cause of my academic success.
Again, I will not argue that learning things other than the "core" curriculum has no value. But these things should be electives, not requirements. Should we emphasize foreign language over art (which I had little exposure to before college)? Should we mandate learning a foreign language while cutting out computer classes or other possible electives?
Languages take years to learn for most people. They are a long term commitment. You cannot throw a kid into French class at the age of 10 and expect them to pick it up. Teaching this squeezes out other possible subjects that might be taught. And while that might be appropriate for some kids, it should not be mandated for all kids.
With this attitude Amlord, then we should throw out higher math and all science. I almost never use anything I used in high school (where I got to trig/pre cal). I hated math, I still hate math. Yet, I have to take math classes in university even though its almost guranteed it will do nothing for me. Additionally, most universities have foreign language requirements, and it seems ridiculous to start learning a language so late. We could cut out those language requirements if kids were taught at a younger age.
As has already been pointed out, its not whether or not someone will use that language. Although I believe that if we taught foreign languages in elementary school, it would end being of use for people because they would be fluent in the language, instead of just knowing a few rules of grammar, which constitutes almost nothing. Like math, learning a language helps you to think in a different manner, and I would say that has widespread benefits. Learning to go outside a normal thought pattern is important in problem solving and seeing someone else's point of view. I would hope that everyone sees the importance of that.
Also, if we really wanted kids to learn a foreign language, it doesn't necessarily mean that we would have to "crowd out" other subjects. We could teach subjects like literature, math, science or whathaveyou in a forgein language, instead of just focusing on one foreign language class and the rest of the curriculum in english.
And for those of you who took a few language classes in high school and don't use it now and think it's a waste, I am positive that is because you aren't fluent in the language. Knowing French has profoundly affected the way I think and approach writing and communication with other people. And its cool when I hear people speaking French (more often than you'd think), and can communicate with them.
As has already been pointed out, its not whether or not someone will use that language. Although I believe that if we taught foreign languages in elementary school, it would end being of use for people because they would be fluent in the language, instead of just knowing a few rules of grammar, which constitutes almost nothing. Like math, learning a language helps you to think in a different manner, and I would say that has widespread benefits. Learning to go outside a normal thought pattern is important in problem solving and seeing someone else's point of view. I would hope that everyone sees the importance of that.
Also, if we really wanted kids to learn a foreign language, it doesn't necessarily mean that we would have to "crowd out" other subjects. We could teach subjects like literature, math, science or whathaveyou in a forgein language, instead of just focusing on one foreign language class and the rest of the curriculum in english.
And for those of you who took a few language classes in high school and don't use it now and think it's a waste, I am positive that is because you aren't fluent in the language. Knowing French has profoundly affected the way I think and approach writing and communication with other people. And its cool when I hear people speaking French (more often than you'd think), and can communicate with them.
Recall the topic for debate:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
The key phrase: required to take a significant number of credit hours.
In order for this to be feasible, all the kids would need to take the same language. I highly doubt we could find the funds to teach history (for example) in English, German, Spanish, Latin and French (the language options I had when I decided on French). This simply would not be possible in today's "budget crunched" school districts.
Basic science and math are requirements, advanced ones are not. Even in the private (Catholic) high school I attended, the only requirements were basic biology, chemistry and one other science: either physics or Earth Science--rocks for jocks. I took both. Physics (advanced science) was not required. Similarly with math: you needed to take only up to Alg2/pre-calc.
Should significant amounts of foreign language exposure be required? I'm still not convinced.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
The key phrase: required to take a significant number of credit hours.
QUOTE(kimpossible)
Also, if we really wanted kids to learn a foreign language, it doesn't necessarily mean that we would have to "crowd out" other subjects.
In order for this to be feasible, all the kids would need to take the same language. I highly doubt we could find the funds to teach history (for example) in English, German, Spanish, Latin and French (the language options I had when I decided on French). This simply would not be possible in today's "budget crunched" school districts.
QUOTE(kimpossible)
With this attitude Amlord, then we should throw out higher math and all science.
Basic science and math are requirements, advanced ones are not. Even in the private (Catholic) high school I attended, the only requirements were basic biology, chemistry and one other science: either physics or Earth Science--rocks for jocks. I took both. Physics (advanced science) was not required. Similarly with math: you needed to take only up to Alg2/pre-calc.
Should significant amounts of foreign language exposure be required? I'm still not convinced.
Question for Debate:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
No, they shouldn't. I believe firmly in allowing students some choice in their curriculum in school. As it stands today their elective choices are relatively small. Adding foreign language to the requirements limits it even more.
As an example, I chose not to take foreign language at all in middle or high school. Instead, I focused on theatre, speech and debate. I don't regret those choices one iota. Had I been required to take a significant number of foreign language hours, one of those choices likely would have been sacrificed. My confidence in public presentations from theatre and speech serve me regularly, whereas my failure to learn German has created zero issues in my life. On an annoying note, the only reason I didn't graduate with honors from high school was my failure to take 2 years of a foreign language.
I did manage to take 2 years of Russian in college (required for liberal arts degrees). I had fun with it, even got a date from playing "My Russian friend" at a mall one time. I do want to visit Russia at some point and dust the cobwebs off my knowledge of the language, but I can do that as an adult without having it regimented into my primary education.
If I were to learn a new language today, it would likely be Spanish. There is a significant Latino immigrant population in Charlotte and it might avail me some clarity at some point in time. I think there *can* be value in learning a foreign language, but I don't feel its essential to make it a requirement in primary education.
Doc
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
No, they shouldn't. I believe firmly in allowing students some choice in their curriculum in school. As it stands today their elective choices are relatively small. Adding foreign language to the requirements limits it even more.
As an example, I chose not to take foreign language at all in middle or high school. Instead, I focused on theatre, speech and debate. I don't regret those choices one iota. Had I been required to take a significant number of foreign language hours, one of those choices likely would have been sacrificed. My confidence in public presentations from theatre and speech serve me regularly, whereas my failure to learn German has created zero issues in my life. On an annoying note, the only reason I didn't graduate with honors from high school was my failure to take 2 years of a foreign language.
I did manage to take 2 years of Russian in college (required for liberal arts degrees). I had fun with it, even got a date from playing "My Russian friend" at a mall one time. I do want to visit Russia at some point and dust the cobwebs off my knowledge of the language, but I can do that as an adult without having it regimented into my primary education.
If I were to learn a new language today, it would likely be Spanish. There is a significant Latino immigrant population in Charlotte and it might avail me some clarity at some point in time. I think there *can* be value in learning a foreign language, but I don't feel its essential to make it a requirement in primary education.
Doc
QUOTE(BoF @ Apr 23 2005, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Apr 23 2005, 06:36 AM)
Question for Debate:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
I'm not going to say that it should be required, but I think foreign language should be available and strongly recommended, especially for those students preparing for college.
Texas borders Mexico and the hispanic population is growing. Some knowledge of Spanish would be helpful to people in the Southwest.
On the other hand, marginal students who are struggling with math and English--students who are probably not college bound, might make better use of time than studying foreign language.
I believe students should be required to take a foreign language in jr. and high school.
If it become a matter of resources, then tough choices will have to be made.
The priority should be to reading, writing, math, science, history and a foreign language. If cuts need to be made, then whatever is left should be a candidate.
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 5 2005, 06:28 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 5 2005, 10:57 AM)
There is a very significant advantage for children learning foreign languages- they speak better english, score higher on SATs and score consistantly higher on IQ tests. EVery single study shows that stimulating the brain between the ages of 6 weeks and four years advances the brain developement- so, we will just have smarter children, regardless if you "use" the language or not!
Amlord- you may have never used the French- but your brian did- it made you a smarter person!
http://www.mctlc.org/newvisions/legscores.html
Amlord- you may have never used the French- but your brian did- it made you a smarter person!
http://www.mctlc.org/newvisions/legscores.html
I never said I didn't learn French. As with most things academic, I was a top student. I still remember most of the vocabulary and grammar rules from French, even after 15 or more years of non-exposure.
My point was that I have not used it since I stepped out of French class when I was 16. I also believe I was a better learner at the age of 10 (before beginning my French lessons) than I was at 16 (when I stopped). Now that certainly has nothing to do with French class, but I was an excellent student before being exposed to French. It was not the cause of my academic success.
Again, I will not argue that learning things other than the "core" curriculum has no value. But these things should be electives, not requirements. Should we emphasize foreign language over art (which I had little exposure to before college)? Should we mandate learning a foreign language while cutting out computer classes or other possible electives?
Languages take years to learn for most people. They are a long term commitment. You cannot throw a kid into French class at the age of 10 and expect them to pick it up. Teaching this squeezes out other possible subjects that might be taught. And while that might be appropriate for some kids, it should not be mandated for all kids.
I think you missed the point of my post- it should be considered "core" because it helps in so many other areas of developement- and the earlier, the better. 10 for you was rather late for French- but as the link I posted above, and I haven't been able to find a study to REFUTE this study- foreign language core requirements indicates higher scores and better thinking proccesses ACROSS THE BOARD- so, students that have a foriegn language perform better in math and science as well.
I am sending my daughter, as I mentioned, to Russian immersion school. They teach the core curriculum IN THAT LANGUAGE- so they are ADDING TO the learning curve by "scaffolding"
http://www.tsg.suny.edu/downloadfiles/vcre...%20Vygotsky.pdf
This gives even greater detail to Vygotsky's thoughts on the matter:
http://www.funderstanding.com/vygotsky.cfm
"Language is a primary form of interaction through which adults transmit to the child the rich body of knowledge that exists in the culture.
As learning progresses, the child's own language comes to serve as her primary tool of intellectual adaptation. Eventually, children can use internal language to direct their own behavior.
Internalization refers to the process of learning--and thereby internalizing--a rich body of knowledge and tools of thought that first exist outside the child. This happens primarily through language."
and this improves OVERALL education, and appears to do it in any enviroment, whether it be in sub-sahara africa or DeMoine- if they learn a second language by 10, thier IQ is higher, education better etc etc
The point isn't if they use the language past high school- it is the better performance in education that makes it worthwhile!
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 5 2005, 11:41 AM)
Recall the topic for debate:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
The key phrase: required to take a significant number of credit hours.
In order for this to be feasible, all the kids would need to take the same language. I highly doubt we could find the funds to teach history (for example) in English, German, Spanish, Latin and French (the language options I had when I decided on French). This simply would not be possible in today's "budget crunched" school districts.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
The key phrase: required to take a significant number of credit hours.
QUOTE(kimpossible)
Also, if we really wanted kids to learn a foreign language, it doesn't necessarily mean that we would have to "crowd out" other subjects.
In order for this to be feasible, all the kids would need to take the same language. I highly doubt we could find the funds to teach history (for example) in English, German, Spanish, Latin and French (the language options I had when I decided on French). This simply would not be possible in today's "budget crunched" school districts.
Whats wrong with all kids in one school learning the same foreign language? What would be wrong with having certain major languages form one school, and having families choose which school they want to send their children to? Also, in Europe they offer a wide variety of language classes for their middle school and high school students, I dont know why it shouldn't be feasible here. Its not like theres a huge discrepancy in GDP, Europe just happens to invest more money in schools than we do. We could change that.
QUOTE
QUOTE(kimpossible)
With this attitude Amlord, then we should throw out higher math and all science.
Basic science and math are requirements, advanced ones are not. Even in the private (Catholic) high school I attended, the only requirements were basic biology, chemistry and one other science: either physics or Earth Science--rocks for jocks. I took both. Physics (advanced science) was not required. Similarly with math: you needed to take only up to Alg2/pre-calc.
Should significant amounts of foreign language exposure be required? I'm still not convinced.
I dont think that pre-calc is "basic" math. But if Im understanding your point correctly, you're saying people shouldn't be required to take a foreign language because they will not be using it. Im saying that that doesn't make sense, because if you're using that logic, then why should other "useless" classes be required? As a Political Science major, what good has my physics class done, and what good will it do for me? Same with trig. If our education system is based on producing a well rounded member of society who knows a little bit about every subject, then foreign language should be required.
EDIT: fixed quotes. -Amlord
Here is something that is defintely hot with my teachers right now.
I do not believe that it should be required. But I do think that it should be availible. I hate the fact that I am taking latin next year and the only latin I was ever exposed to in middle school was- E Plurebus Unum and Semper Fidelis. I could have used it before hand... *kicks dirt immaturley.*
I do not believe that it should be required. But I do think that it should be availible. I hate the fact that I am taking latin next year and the only latin I was ever exposed to in middle school was- E Plurebus Unum and Semper Fidelis. I could have used it before hand... *kicks dirt immaturley.*
Education has a fixed amount of resources. To add a foreign language requirement would either subtract resources from other areas or add costs. To add a requirement that kids take classes that they often cannot learn in their native language in a foreign language is not even within the realm of possibility (in my opinion).
As far as math and science goes, kids must learn the basics. To me, everything up to pre-calc is basic (sorry, I'm an engineer... ). We should teach the basics of science, math and grammar/literature. I look at a foreign language as an extension of the teaching of English grammar/literature. Which is fine, as an elective, but not as a requirement.
Who is to decide which foreign languages are available in a school system? In many systems, there is only one high school. Who decides? What happens to kids that pick French in middle school (or elementary) when the high school teaches German? That situation is just way too complex.
As far as math and science goes, kids must learn the basics. To me, everything up to pre-calc is basic (sorry, I'm an engineer... ). We should teach the basics of science, math and grammar/literature. I look at a foreign language as an extension of the teaching of English grammar/literature. Which is fine, as an elective, but not as a requirement.
Who is to decide which foreign languages are available in a school system? In many systems, there is only one high school. Who decides? What happens to kids that pick French in middle school (or elementary) when the high school teaches German? That situation is just way too complex.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
Personally, I think that this is an issue that states and the government ought to delegate to local school boards. You need to look at the factors involved in deciding whether to teach a foreign language.
In some places, people are all like "english first", and "this stuff is a waste of time". If people believe that, chance are, their kids will believe it. Proven fact.
In some places, school budget are severely strapped. I have to belive that while there are benefits to learning a foreign language, its down on the list right above "computer proficiency". If schools need the money elsewhere, I think it's okay (if unfortunate) if they decide to phase out foreign language programs.
Personally, I think that this is an issue that states and the government ought to delegate to local school boards. You need to look at the factors involved in deciding whether to teach a foreign language.
In some places, people are all like "english first", and "this stuff is a waste of time". If people believe that, chance are, their kids will believe it. Proven fact.
In some places, school budget are severely strapped. I have to belive that while there are benefits to learning a foreign language, its down on the list right above "computer proficiency". If schools need the money elsewhere, I think it's okay (if unfortunate) if they decide to phase out foreign language programs.
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
I took French from 7th grade to 9th grade and barely remember a word of it. I think that kids should be taught a foreign language starting in elementary school. Studies have shown that when children are taught something when they are young they tend to retain it better. Plus in elemenary school you have less things clouding your mind than you have in middle school and high school. So you have more time to study and retain it. I wish that I had been taught French in elementary school so thatI could possibly be fluent in it. So, students should be required to learn a foreign language. But starting in elementary school.
I took French from 7th grade to 9th grade and barely remember a word of it. I think that kids should be taught a foreign language starting in elementary school. Studies have shown that when children are taught something when they are young they tend to retain it better. Plus in elemenary school you have less things clouding your mind than you have in middle school and high school. So you have more time to study and retain it. I wish that I had been taught French in elementary school so thatI could possibly be fluent in it. So, students should be required to learn a foreign language. But starting in elementary school.
QUOTE
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
I think it's extremely ironic that American students are required to take a foreign language in school...yet immigrants aren't required to learn English...Hmmmm...No, I don't think it should be required to take a foreign language...Students would do it anyway because 9/10 colleges require it for admission. There is no real reason why students should not have the option to take the class or not, as I said, ultimately, it's all about the colleges.
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ May 12 2005, 05:51 PM)
QUOTE
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
I think it's extremely ironic that American students are required to take a foreign language in school...yet immigrants aren't required to learn English...Hmmmm...Nonsense! There isn't a student in a public American school who is not expected to learn English. There are "English as a second language" courses offered in all schools, from which students are exited as soon as possible.
As far as older immigrants who are no longer in school...well, when we can force older Americans to unlearn their prejudices then we can deal with that problem .....but this is a conversation about public schools.
As far as the original topic goes I have been wavering. There have been may good arguments posted on boths sides in this thread. I agree with Amlord's proposition that we must make a cost/benefit analysis and I am also swayed by CR's argument that the study of other languages is linked to all-around academic success.
This would lead me to say that, if we are going to have a mandatory program in foreign languages then we MUST follow through to the early grades or not do it at all. This can become an expensive proposition. I believe it would be worth it for one possible reason:
To beat the dead horse but once more I would start by pointing out that we are in a global economy. No longer can we assume that success in the US = success for the business. Our businesses have to be able to adapt as swiftly as possible. I would argue that language fluency and acculturation ARE commodities.
As examples I submit a host of linguistic mess-ups that have cost millions and ruined businesses...from Coke Cola's mistakes in China to Chevrolet's marketing of the Nova ( "no go" in Spanish) in Mexico. Call center jobs are migrated to India because Indians are fluent in English AND they work cheaper. If they were not multi-lingual it would not be an issue.
I don't claim to see the future of our world economy, but I am pretty sure that linguistic skills and cultural adaptability will be mitigating factors in the success or decline of our country. For that reason I believe that we should indoctrinate our youth to a variety of languages beginning early in their educations
Foreign language education should not be a requirement. But it should be available. What is more important is the ever increasing trend of treating english as a foreign language. How many people do I have to go through at Burger King before I can get a Whopper without mayo? I would gladly pay $7 for a Whopper if they can't find someone at the going pay rate who can speak english.
QUOTE(mufka @ Jun 1 2005, 01:41 PM)
Foreign language education should not be a requirement. But it should be available. What is more important is the ever increasing trend of treating english as a foreign language. How many people do I have to go through at Burger King before I can get a Whopper without mayo? I would gladly pay $7 for a Whopper if they can't find someone at the going pay rate who can speak english.
I can't help but note the irony of your post following one from a member named "The Red Herring", because that is exactly what your post constitutes. What exactly does a generalization of the native language of personnel in the drive thru at a fast food restaurant have to do with whether foreign language(s) should be required coursework in our public schools?
If you believe it should not be a requirement, can you state your reasons behind that conclusion?
Doc
A few people have talked about how it would be nice to have extra language education in schools, and how it might even beneift the nation, but that is it precluded by the tightness of resources in schools, in terms of budgets, or in terms of how "tough choices" would have to be made in the curriculum to permit compulsory foreign language teaching.
This assumes that education funding is a zero sum game. What's wrong with increasing taxes to fund the extra spending commitments? Assuming, of course, that the commitments are seen as worthwhile enough to be necessary. Might it be that the seemingly universal American allergy to taxation might have a downside, as well as providing some competitive advantages?
Oh, and on French productivity - measured on productivity per man-hour, rather than per man, are not very far behind the USA, despite their prolonged prolems of unemployment and slow consumer spending. And they aren't all working themselves into early graves by working 60+ hours per week to do it.
They are in the economic doldrums because of economic sclerosis caused by red tape, unionisation, lack of entrepreneurism and a whole host of other things, for sure. But their workers are pretty good (when they are there).
There are probably as many, if not more, microeconomic lessons that the US can learn from France as the other way around, though certainly the French need to learn some hard macroeconomics. They won't have too much of a problem learning those lessons from you (or from Britain, which may be less of a stretch to make in one go) because many of the speak English.
When the US workforce is working 24 hour per day and no more growth can be squeezed out at little or no cost to US business, you might need to rethink opposition to foreign language teaching. When you want something from someone, it's best to ask them for it in their own language, is it not?
This assumes that education funding is a zero sum game. What's wrong with increasing taxes to fund the extra spending commitments? Assuming, of course, that the commitments are seen as worthwhile enough to be necessary. Might it be that the seemingly universal American allergy to taxation might have a downside, as well as providing some competitive advantages?
Oh, and on French productivity - measured on productivity per man-hour, rather than per man, are not very far behind the USA, despite their prolonged prolems of unemployment and slow consumer spending. And they aren't all working themselves into early graves by working 60+ hours per week to do it.
They are in the economic doldrums because of economic sclerosis caused by red tape, unionisation, lack of entrepreneurism and a whole host of other things, for sure. But their workers are pretty good (when they are there).
There are probably as many, if not more, microeconomic lessons that the US can learn from France as the other way around, though certainly the French need to learn some hard macroeconomics. They won't have too much of a problem learning those lessons from you (or from Britain, which may be less of a stretch to make in one go) because many of the speak English.
When the US workforce is working 24 hour per day and no more growth can be squeezed out at little or no cost to US business, you might need to rethink opposition to foreign language teaching. When you want something from someone, it's best to ask them for it in their own language, is it not?
Required to? No, i don't think so. As i recall just learning the rudiments of the English Language baked my brain quite enough.
On the otherhand, a few years back there was some talk of creating a Universal Language of Earth. If that new Language was perfected, or even is, then i'd find it socially acceptable to require students of all ages to learn at minimum the fundamentals to such a language.
On the otherhand, a few years back there was some talk of creating a Universal Language of Earth. If that new Language was perfected, or even is, then i'd find it socially acceptable to require students of all ages to learn at minimum the fundamentals to such a language.
Foreign Language is at the heart of what is both right and wrong with public education today. Public perception is that a good teacher should be able to teach any student to speak as fluently in a Foreign Language in a couple of years as the student already speaks English. They never consider the fact that by the time a child enters kindergarten at age 5, he or she has had at leat 14,000 hours of hearing and responding to English and that in a typical school year a 14 year old student will only get about 135 hours of instruction on any one given topic in high school. By that time, the 14 year old has had at least 40,000 hours of English exposure.
The clock is therefore the teacher's worst enemy. Teaching is about getting the best results in the least amount of time possible. Proficient teachers who care about their students and their responsibility to those students are always looking for better ways to get more across to their students in less time and with less frustration for those students.
New approaches to teaching Foreign Language are turning the whole curriculum on end precisely because they yield better results. Grammar drills are out and listening and reading as much as possible in the target language is in, along with lots and lots of personalized review questions from teachers to help students stay on task, process information, and thoroughly absorb what they are being taught. And yet, the public expects grammar drills because Foreign Language instruction has always included grammar drills.
New methods seek to imitate and accelerate the natural acquisition of language and stand in direct opposition to the content and format of most Foreign Language textbooks. Textbooks are increasingly less valuable to teachers and to students precisely because they are increasingly representative of what is politically correct and decreasingly representative of what is educationally correct. The watchdogs of political correctness are horrified to learn that speaking errors are expected and that the kind of errors and frequency of those errors are actually milestones of progress to the properly trained teacher. The absence of those errors, on the other hand, is evidence all too often of cheating. Modern methods rely on skill testing to verify learning rather than completion of grammar lessons and tests. How does the student respond to oral questions or to a timed writing prompt?
When these more effective methods are used, there is less need to require Foreign Language study because students feel less threatened by it and more interested in either trying it or continuing with it. So, my answer is that we should train teachers to use the better, more natural ways of teaching Foreign Language and then attract students to learning that is fun and effective, rather than continue to require them to submit to non-productive torture.
I'm not going to say that it should be required, but I think foreign language should be available and strongly recommended, especially for those students preparing for college.
Texas borders Mexico and the hispanic population is growing. Some knowledge of Spanish would be helpful to people in the Southwest.
On the other hand, marginal students who are struggling with math and English--students who are probably not college bound, might make better use of time than studying foreign language.
The clock is therefore the teacher's worst enemy. Teaching is about getting the best results in the least amount of time possible. Proficient teachers who care about their students and their responsibility to those students are always looking for better ways to get more across to their students in less time and with less frustration for those students.
New approaches to teaching Foreign Language are turning the whole curriculum on end precisely because they yield better results. Grammar drills are out and listening and reading as much as possible in the target language is in, along with lots and lots of personalized review questions from teachers to help students stay on task, process information, and thoroughly absorb what they are being taught. And yet, the public expects grammar drills because Foreign Language instruction has always included grammar drills.
New methods seek to imitate and accelerate the natural acquisition of language and stand in direct opposition to the content and format of most Foreign Language textbooks. Textbooks are increasingly less valuable to teachers and to students precisely because they are increasingly representative of what is politically correct and decreasingly representative of what is educationally correct. The watchdogs of political correctness are horrified to learn that speaking errors are expected and that the kind of errors and frequency of those errors are actually milestones of progress to the properly trained teacher. The absence of those errors, on the other hand, is evidence all too often of cheating. Modern methods rely on skill testing to verify learning rather than completion of grammar lessons and tests. How does the student respond to oral questions or to a timed writing prompt?
When these more effective methods are used, there is less need to require Foreign Language study because students feel less threatened by it and more interested in either trying it or continuing with it. So, my answer is that we should train teachers to use the better, more natural ways of teaching Foreign Language and then attract students to learning that is fun and effective, rather than continue to require them to submit to non-productive torture.
QUOTE(BoF @ Apr 23 2005, 12:21 PM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Apr 23 2005, 06:36 AM)
Question for Debate:
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
Should students be required to take a significant number of credit hours in foreign language in both junior high and high school?
I'm not going to say that it should be required, but I think foreign language should be available and strongly recommended, especially for those students preparing for college.
Texas borders Mexico and the hispanic population is growing. Some knowledge of Spanish would be helpful to people in the Southwest.
On the other hand, marginal students who are struggling with math and English--students who are probably not college bound, might make better use of time than studying foreign language.
Although I must say that I was not a big fan of going through foreign languages in school...neither was I a big fan of math courses either. No matter how much we say that we'll never use it, we still need it. In the future in can pay off...both economically and politically.
Kids should be exposed to different languages so that they don't grow up believing that the world is a uniform place, that everybody speaks english and that everybody lives like they do. I mean...I live in California...and just 500 miles south of where I live there exists a different culture, language, (and in retrospect different religion) then the place that I've grown up. Kids must be taught foreign languages...thats a fact.
Kids should be exposed to different languages so that they don't grow up believing that the world is a uniform place, that everybody speaks english and that everybody lives like they do. I mean...I live in California...and just 500 miles south of where I live there exists a different culture, language, (and in retrospect different religion) then the place that I've grown up. Kids must be taught foreign languages...thats a fact.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.