More education dilemmas
Returning to our current educational dilemma, we just discussed and read in the Courier on October 20th that a consultant felt we may be trying to teach too many concepts in our schools and not focusing on some of the basics. http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051020/NEWS01/510200427/1008/NEWS01
Now in Sunday’s Courier, the front page article talks about requiring students to show they can speak, read, and write a second foreign language. http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
I certainly am not opposed to a second language, but the majority of students will never in their lifetime use a second language. It is a little ridiculous to require this for a High School diploma.
The Board of Education needs to figure out better ways to teach kids the basic concepts that the vast majority will need. And speaking of foreign languages, I am an advocate for making English the “Official” language of the USA.
Now in Sunday’s Courier, the front page article talks about requiring students to show they can speak, read, and write a second foreign language. http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
I certainly am not opposed to a second language, but the majority of students will never in their lifetime use a second language. It is a little ridiculous to require this for a High School diploma.
The Board of Education needs to figure out better ways to teach kids the basic concepts that the vast majority will need. And speaking of foreign languages, I am an advocate for making English the “Official” language of the USA.
posted by Anonymous at 5:24 AM
20 Comments:
Students in Europe often take two foreign languages in high school.
The English as :official" language sentiment is grandstanding politics at its absolute worst. It means nothing, s superfluous, and merely enables the Dan Coffeys of the world.
In the emerging world economy, language skills become ever more important and will directly impact advancement and income sooner than we think.
Why not beat the curve instead of falling back on the old American excuse of "'cuz we're American, that's why."
Travel in Europe often means that by going just a couple hundred miles you not only enter a different country entirely but also a different language and culture. Students graduating from European schools will likely live, travel and/or work outside of where they grew up necessitating this diversity for their success.
This is not the case for students here in the United States and for those who do have those ambitions, the courses are available.
Mandating this as a requirement when our graduating seniors lack so many other basic skills is not the best use of our teachers and tax dollars. Just my opinion!!
Ceece touches on another vital point: If the language exposure and instruction begins sufficiently early in the student's academic career, it can actually help with comprehension of the other subjects, and it takes nothing away from the student's ability to learn in other areas.
Students graduating from European schools will likely live, travel and/or work outside of where they grew up necessitating this diversity for their success.
And, if they're lucky, students graduating from US schools just might find themselves in the same position.
Like it or not, the success of the US, its economy, and its citizens are dependent on people and events in other countries. The sooner we come to terms with that and behave accordingly, rather than continuing to perpetuate our own arrogant mythology on the world stage, the better off we'll be.
The ability to foster and maintain relationships is the key to prosperity and long-term well-being in an information environment, namely, planet Earth.
Language study is a big step in that inevitable direction.
But thumping the hoary "English language, rah rah rah" tub gets the trogs to dancin'.
Like it or not, the success of the US, its economy, and its citizens are dependent on people and events in other countries. The sooner we come to terms with that and behave accordingly, rather than continuing to perpetuate our own arrogant mythology on the world stage, the better off we'll be.
While this may be partly true; why are we arrogant by asking people choosing to live here to learn the language that has been predominantly spoken since our inception? Most other countries do not cater to every foreigner that chooses to live in their countries.
Failure to maintain some of our basic underlying principles that allowed us to be the greatest nation on earth will ultimately be our downfall. We will never be able to accomidate for everyone's
needs and it behooves individuals to put some effort forward who choose to live here.
I am not opposed to teaching languages or offering them, but do not think they should be required for graduation.
And I stick with the fact that the majority of students from High School will never need to use a second language. I did not say it may not be useful. But the majority will not be using it.
Failure to maintain some of our basic underlying principles that allowed us to be the greatest nation on earth will ultimately be our downfall.
As an illustration of how quickly a topic can veer away from sensibility to irrelevance, I submit the preceding.
If in fact there is relative merit in the "greatest nation" claim, and if speaking one or another language, or more, or less, has anything to do with "greatness" (whatever that is), then what does any of this have to do with "underlying principles"?
I can make just as compelling an argument that a "great" nation that insists on linguistic conformity displays more self-doubt and fear than "greatness," but then, it still wouldn't have anything to do with the advantages of a human being anywhere in being multilingual!
A couple definitions for greatness include:
Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West.
Eminent; distinguished: a great leader.
Greatness is typically a comparative term. Show me a country you view as being greater.
You keep getting off track. I have never denied that being multi-lingual would not be an advantage. But there are numerous other advantages that the schools do not mandate for students.
Back to a previous post I used an example of balancing a checkbook. How about reading a contract, negotiating to buy a car or house, being able to read, write and communciate with most other Americans in every day life.
These would all be advantages, but we certainly do not mandate them for graduation.
According to the 2000 census, less than 13% of the entire 281,421,906 population is hispanic. More than 69% are white and the remainder other nationalities.
There certainly may be communities that are primarily hispanic but the data does not support your supposition about entire states will be speaking anything other than English
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP3&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-format=&-CONTEXT=qt
HB -- using your own data --if it is the case that few states "will be speaking anything other than English," what then is the purpose of having an
"English as national language law" unless you fear they might be considering starting?
No fear.
But I don't like paying more taxes.
It is a tremendous expense to provide services in more than one language. This affects government as well as private businesses. If we cater to one group than we will be setting ourselves up for everyone to demand everything in the language they choose.
Where will it end?
I view the requirement to learn another language as more than just that. It's also a way to broaden horizons, open minds, and show that there's more than one way to express, or perceive things.
I am sure there'll be some added expense in making it a requirement, but I think there will be a worthwhile payoff. My 6-year-old takes Spanish because I can see that with our increasing Hispanic population it most likely will impede her ability to communicate and be self-sufficient if she doesn't learn a reasonable amount of Spanish as soon as possible.
But I don't like paying more taxes.
It took all day, 17 posts and literally hundreds of words (all in English), but finally, we get down to the fundamentals of the Healthblogger's concern.
It's all about money.
What a profound relief.
That's unfair and certainly untrue.
We've had adequate discourse and I am disappointed at the remark. We should be able to "agree to disagree, agreeably"
HB, reread your previous posting.
Are you not expressing concern over what it will cost the "taxpayer" to fund a multilingual society?
If you did not intend it that way, then I'll happily withdraw my riposte, but until then, I'm not sure which part of it was improper.
Not only do people in a lot of other countries speak English but the US citizens who go there often expect them to.
Nothing gives the impression of arrogance more than a US person getting loud and rude in another country because the people there don't quite understand their particular dialect.
Our trepdiation in teaching and learning other languages (and the assumption that we'll never use them) enforces the often accurate opinion that US citizens think they are more important than everybody else.
Making learning about other countries and cultures a priority in our educational system, if nothing else, is a sign of humility and respect, both of which would go a long way in repairing our relations and reputation elsewhere in the world.
It's important to remember, HB, that what consitutes great is defined very differently by various people(s).
For instance, I think Denmark is greater in a lot ways. Why? Because, while they're proud of their heritage and accomplishments, they've never fallen prey to a false nationalism that compels them to claim the superiority that seems so important to the U.S.
After having visited there and gotten that general vibe, I did a little research. The first document I found was published by the Danish national tourism office.
It began with a phrase approximating "Welcome to Denmark. We don't have the Eiffel Tower. We don't have Big Ben or the Empire State Building. And we don't care. We're happy."
That's a very un-American sentiment and yet pretty great as far as I'm concerned.
Absolutely concerned over cost. I believe our government should not spend more than it brings in. I believe in fiscal responsibility and that requires tough decisions on how and where to spend money. I do not believe that this is one of those areas.
We cannot and should not fund every social program, pork project, or educational endeavor as a government.
It is a tremendous cost for the government to accomidate multilinguality in every aspect of life. Without setting limits it will spiral out of control.
I've never been to Denmark and honestly do not know much about it's government. It may be a wonderful country.
Most Americans are proud of our country and our heritage and we take great pride in trying to help less fortunate nations and people.
There will always be discord on how, when and where to place our efforts and money, but the ability to openly discuss topics like these, separate us from many other nations and that truly makes us great.
What are some of those areas where money should be spent?
Roads and utilities
Strong military
Adequate border protection
Law enforcement
Basic healthcare for all Americans
Access to education and increased funding for easier post-secondary education whether this be college or trade school
National parks and enviromental concerns
Funding for ongoing standard and alternative fuel sources
Lastly diplomatic endeavors
It's getting late, and no one ever said whether I had to withdraw my "in it for the money" comment for being improper.
But I can always have another beer and come back tomorrow morning.
Post a Comment
<< Home