<p>Art and music tend to be intensive majors, and PE majors need to take the same weeder classes as pre-meds. On top of this, prospective art, music, and PE teachers need to take classes leading to a teaching credential. I am not sure that requiring a foreign language on top of this would be practical for any but those who are also exceptionally talented in learning languages, who have had an immersion experience, or who happen to speak English as a second language.</p>
<p>Our district claims that the bottleneck in establishing language programs at the elementary level or at the secondary level in languages with few college majors is that prospective language teachers need a teaching credential from an American university in addition to proficiency in another language.</p>
<p>While laudable, it is very difficult to find PE teachers and probably music teachers proficient enough in a foreign language. I know people will say “what about Hispanic PE/Art/Music teachers?” but not everyone wants to learn Spanish and really, not all Spanish-speakers make good foreign language teachers.</p>
<p>“not all Spanish-speakers make good foreign language teachers”</p>
<p>I think that at elementary school age, you don’t need a Prof. with diploma as a teacher. Any native speaker will be good, at least for the first year. (numbers, colors, few songs, primitive conversations…)</p>
<p>If a college-age kid is interested in Arabic language and culture … it would be natural for him to go and live for a year in the Arab world. How else would he be able to learn the culture?</p>
<p>Yes, it is relatively cheap. And easy to find temporary employment oversee. For example, to teach English.</p>
<p>I agree that languages should be taught at a younger age, but I strongly disagree that they shouldn’t be taught at higher levels. Students who want to pursue the language (reading and writing in the language, analyzing literature, learning about culture of different areas of the world that speak the language) would be able to learn a tremendous amount in high school and college after being familiar with the basics at an earlier age. Similar to how students are required to continue studying English (usually into college), even though presumably everyone is fluent in English. You can do more advanced study of the language in high school and college than you could in elementary school. Learning to speak it is one thing, but students who pursue advanced study of a language often want to use the language in a more advanced way.</p>
<p>And then there are kids who change schools from a school that didn’t teach the language in elementary school and would still need to start in the beginning in high school.</p>
<p>Also, if they learn the language as a kid, they may start to forget the language if they don’t use it frequently or stop using it after middle school. And studying abroad isn’t an option for every child and family. It’s something that may only be possible in college with financial aid or scholarships, and they may be able to get more out of it as an adult than a child.</p>
<p>IF a school district has money for only 4 years of FL … what difference does it make, to study FL in grades 3-6 or in 9-12 ? The end result is the same.</p>
<p>“if they learn the language as a kid, they may start to forget the language if they don’t use it frequently or stop using it after middle school.”</p>
<p>Same goes to HS. … they may start to forget the language if they don’t use it frequently or stop using it after HS.</p>
<p>My D’s public school district in NJ had universal Spanish language instruction in elementary school, and it was pretty worthless. It was treated like a “special” (art, music) and the kids just did not have enough sustained practice to learn and retain the material. For the language to “take,” it has to be a regular daily subject.</p>
<p>The other problem with offering a language at the elementary level is: which one do you choose? Schools do not have the financial resources to offer instruction in multiple languages. In many countries, there is no debate about teaching English to schoolchildren because it is the obvious choice as the current lingua franca, so to speak. If you are already a native English speaker in the US, I suppose Spanish might be the logical choice. However, my D’s experience was not great. She also had small interest in Spanish-language literature, art or cultures and chose another language when she got the chance. Knowing Spanish would be nice, but it’s in no way professionally necessary to anything she wants to do.</p>
<p>I agree. I don’t understand why these arguments work for elementary school, but not HS. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>“the kids just did not have enough sustained practice to learn and retain the material. For the language to “take,” it has to be a regular daily subject.”
It doesn’t matter, whether kids learn FL in elem or HS school. If the school district doesn’t take it seriously, the outcome is poor.</p></li>
<li><p>"She also had small interest in Spanish-language literature, art or cultures and chose another language when she got the chance. Knowing Spanish would be nice, but it’s in no way professionally necessary to anything she wants to do. " - same thing goes to HS. If a kid is not interested in the FL, why does he has to take it in HS?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>At HS some kids want to focus on a particular area of studies, that is related to their career choice. Some want to study additional math, some are interested in Humanities or Sciences. Instead, they have to spend time learning FL, which they may not need.</p>
<p>californiaaa, spending time in Lebanon or Egypt is simply not a sensible or safe idea right now, and hasn’t been for some time. The US State Department says to avoid all travel to Lebanon, and for US citizens in Egypt to depart. </p>
<p>There are other options for students who want to learn Arabic while studying abroad (e.g. Jordan and Israel), but Lebanon and Egypt among many many other countries would be remarkably bad choices. And if I was looking for options for a young US student who doesn’t yet speak the language and who doesn’t have a lot of travel experience, I wouldn’t send them off to either Jordan or Israel etc etc if they weren’t travelling under the auspices of some sort of organized program. </p>
<p>I agree that studying/working abroad is a wonderful thing and can be much cheaper than studying in a US college. That said–it’s not for everyone.</p>
<p>I think learning a second language may increase general verbal abilities, which may actually improve verbal cognitive function even in one’s native language, independent of whether the native and second languages have similarities. </p>
<p>Therefore, learning a second language as an adult may be important regardless of whether one actually uses the second language.</p>
<p>This is my theory, which I would guess hasn’t been tested.</p>
<p>20-year-old men should be able to stand up for themselves. (I won’t send a girl to an Arab country to learn language and culture). BTW, unfortunately, you are right about Egypt and Lebanon.</p>
<p>If kids want to learn real Arab culture, they should live in the country that they are interested in. Jordan is full of Syrian refugees right now = not a safe place by any means. Israel is not an Arab country. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait - these are probably the best choices.</p>
<p>IMHO, if you want to learn to swim, you need to get into water. Alternatively, a kid may come to a realistic conclusion that he doesn’t want to live in an Arab culture and drop the subject (saving time and money).</p>
<p>Californiaa, the vast majority of elementary schools in the US don’t offer a foreign language. For those that do, starting in maybe 7th grade or so, the most that they usually offer is Spanish or French. That’s “why.” It’s not readily available.</p>
<p>That’s an artificially stark contrast. Maybe a student wants to take arabic because they’re interested in the literature, or because they see an expanding business opportunity and want to be familiar with the language. Maybe they’re 20 years old but not sophisticated or independent or experienced enough to be able to go halfway around the world on their own. And so forth.</p>
<p>Would you really want to send your fourteen or fifteen year old child to a foreign country where they don’t know anyone and don’t have any family or friends to work. Especially, when they’ve only experienced the language for maybe an hour a day in elementary school. You may be comfortable with that, but I know many families who would not be. Also, how would that impact their high school education? Would they have to transfer to another school in a foreign country? Would they have to take a year off between middle and high school? Or during high school? If you’re suggesting that they only go for a month or so during the summer, they may have other responsibilities at home, like caring for an ailing relative or younger siblings. They may have to work full time in order to contribute to their family’s expenses or try to save money for college. Also, what if they don’t have the money for transportation to this foreign country? What if they want are learning Mandarin, but don’t have the money for a plane ticket to China?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do think that foreign languages should be introduced at an earlier level, but I disagree that the end result is the same if you HAVE to pick grades 3-6 or grades 9-12. For one thing, 3-6 is bordering on or already past the time when kids can pick up a language naturally (or through passive learning). It depends on who you ask, but generally, kids have to be exposed to the language younger than eight or so to pick up the language through passive learning or have a better chance of sounding like a native. In grades 3-6, they may already be at the stage of having to actively learn the language, which defeats the purpose of introducing the language at a younger age (I’d argue that there should be more immersion programs starting at preschool or kindergarten, or even younger). Also, in high school, they may be better able to learn to read and write the language at a more advanced level than when they are in grades 3-6 and are still learning to put together a paragraph or essay in English.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the point of introducing foreign languages early would be to either take advantage of kids’ propensity to pick up languages naturally through passive learning at a very young age and/or to allow kids to reach a more advanced level through continued study in high school (where they can get accustomed to writing and reading their foreign language at a more sophisticated level) and then pursue it in college, if they so choose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is also true. But then the counter argument is why not have them learn it in high school, if the results are all the same to you? In high school, they may be better able to choose the language that they would most like to study or that would be most helpful to them in the future, since they’re starting to think about college and careers. They may be more likely to pursue it if it’s something that they chose for themselves or that a language they really love. They can choose to pursue the language in college, if they choose to. But what you were suggesting (or what I was interpreting from your posts) was that we teach kids the language in elementary school and then not even offer it in high school. Would they have to then find extracurricular programs that would help them pursue an academic learning of this language? That doesn’t seem particularly beneficial, in my opinion, to have a 4-6 year gap between when they study the language in school and when they could pursue it again in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are many, many reasons to learn a foreign language as an adult. Maybe the language they wanted to learn (like Arabic or Mandarin) wasn’t offered at their school. Maybe the language they wanted to learn was full and they couldn’t take it. Maybe their schedule was too full to be able to pursue the language to the level they wanted to. Maybe they want to continue to pursue the language in a more academic environment. Maybe they were learning another language in school, and now want to learn a third (or fourth!) language in college. Not everyone has parents that put them in lessons in a second language while they were a child, and as an adult, it’s not like they can go back in time and learn a language as a child. Everyone can wish that their parents taught them Spanish or Mandarin or whatever as a child, but their parents may have prioritized sports or music or art over foreign language learning, might not have been in a position to help their child with that when they were young, or might not have even thought of doing so. I think everyone should learn how to play an instrument when they are kid, but I don’t expect schools to start requiring it or every parent to find opportunities for their child to do that.</p>
<p>I agree that 14-15 year old kids should not travel alone. Also it would be really difficult to organize such travel for legal reasons.</p>
<p>Yet, college-age students can travel by themselves. It they are able to leave home to go to college, it means that they are ready to go abroad as well. If the objective is to learn Spanish, it is much cheaper and nicer to do it Latin America than in USA.</p>
<p>“What if they want are learning Mandarin, but don’t have the money for a plane ticket to China?”</p>
<p>Again, college education in USA in Mandarin costs much more than a plane ticket. BTW, sometimes you can find really cheap tickets, off season (we are going to London for a week with my D. for $500 total, including air, and hotel, for 2 people). Plus, college-age kid can find a job in China (teaching English, for example) and make money.</p>