U.S. - Foreign Language Hole?

[Terywj [태리]]

The Issue
1. What do you think about America and learning (or lack of) a secondary language?
2. Should the United States be more assertive in teaching their students a secondary language?

Points to Consider
In the United States, most students are given the option to learn a second language during their high school years, being encouraged that a foreign language will be beneficial in their future. While this is true, it seems there is still not enough emphasis on learning a foreign language. The rest of the world, however, have students learning English and even more languages straight from elementary school. Contrary to the U.S. where foreign language programs are usually cut immediately along with music or creative art programs.

1. How do you guys feel about the foreign language “system” in the U.S.? What do you think could be improved, and if nothing what else could be changed?
2. The importance of foreign languages is ever-growing with a world that’s continuously changing and uniting. Many fields require a secondary language such as business, etc. Language is also a part of expressiveness.
3. Do you think kids in America should be learning a foreign language in the first place?
4. If so, why do you think a foreign language (or lack of) is necessary?

Personal Stance
Being Chinese-American, I knew four languages by the time I began elementary school. To me, knowing multiple languages has helped me with access to both cultures, and I think that everyone should learn a secondary language at the earliest age possible because of the benefits it could and will bring.

I studied Spanish – the only language offered - during my middle school years, but as soon as I entered high school the program was cut. In lieu. I began studying Italian in high school. All the while I continued to perfect my Cantonese, Mandarin, and English (Hakka kinda died during high school). Just one of the benefits of a foreign language is communications. America is a melting pot. Most people should speak English, but there are some who aren’t as fluent so if you know their language then you can easily converse with them.

People who travel a lot find the need for a secondary language. Yes, places like France, Italy, Hong Kong, and Japan are continuously adapting and learning English, but learning the native tongue is important as well for very simple things such as asking directions. Colleges really encourage students to study abroad, and usually students will take classes on a foreign language either before or during the study abroad program.

Foreign languages also help with many jobs. If you’re multilingual, there are a lot of doors open for you. Translating, international politics, etc. will thrive on people who can speak more than one language. In the field of business, Mandarin Chinese is an extremely common language to learn due to the heavy relations with China. Speaking of Chinese – Mandarin and Arabic are perhaps two of the most studied languages in college, and for good reason. A lot of people speak Chinese, and with the situation in the Middle East people who speak Arabic are also benefited.

With the most common languages in the world supposedly being Chinese, English, and Spanish, students in the United States are falling behind other countries. Foreign languages should at least try to be situated during students’ elementary years rather than high school, and while I don’t think the government should have an iron fist saying “You need to study a foreign language!”, there should definitely be more emphasis on learning a secondary language for all the benefits it will bring.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Drawing from personal experience, I feel the current language programs of the U.S. are currently quite sub par. I currently attend a private high school of about 250 and am very disappointing in the language opportunities I have received for the past 7 years.

A quick background about my school. I got to a ritzy highschool in New York called "Ross." This was named after its founder, the late Steve Jay Ross, the former CEO of Timer Warner. Now that he is gone, his wife Courtney funds most of the programs and scholastic budgets. Simply put, the school has money (the ***ing tuition is $25,000).

When I entered this school in 5th grade (7 years ago), they only offered five languages: Spanish, French, Italian, Chinese, and Latin. I was immediately dismayed by the lack of Japanese, the language I had always wanted to take since I saw my first episode of Naruto. However, I chose to take Spanish because my parents told me it would be the most practical language to learn in my current environment.

After that incident, for the most of my middle school career, I just viewed language as something of a burden rather than a rare opportunity to learn the dialect of another region. I became generally lazy in that class and, since my middle school teachers did not really give a d***, I ended up doing very poorly.

Coming into High School language class after four years of joke Spanish was certainly a rude awakening. After I realized that highschool grades actually mattered for something, I had to cover a lot of ground. As I frantically crammed night after night, it gradually began to dawn on me that knowing a second language could be useful in a number of ways. Not only would I be able understand other Spanish speakers, I would be able to communicate with them in their native language (and thus avoid all the nuisances that come with translation). This language could also be useful in a future business or cultural transaction of unforeseeable circumstances.

As soon as I began to understand the importance of religion, I immedietly realized what a poor job my school was doing to teach this at a critical age. Unlike public schools, which usually require at least three highschool years of a foreign language (which I now view to be too low), our school only required two.

What was even worse was that a large percentage of kids still did not care about language at that age and thus found it difficult, but never impossible, to even complete a meager two years of a foreign language. Assuming you started in level 1 as a freshman, all you would have to do is pass the class and goof off for two years until your senior year. Because my school wants as many students to graduate as possible, no matter how well you do in level 2 during senior year, they will pass you so you can graduate.

What is worse, is that the teachers openly acknowledge that this process goes on and don't even seem to be bother by it. What I cannot understand, is if this school has so much funding, why cant they find legitimate teachers who actually care an iota about their students. Regardless, why does a school who prides itself with having so much diversity (Yeah. did I forget to mention this?) have such low expectations of its students in the language department.

From working very hard these past three years, I have made it to Spanish 5 and plan to take the AP exam this year. Though I at least succeeded in becoming fluent in a second language, there are many others who have given up altogether.

However, mixed in with the deadbeats (the majority of them being white), there are two students from France who each know 4 languages and one east Asian who knew seven different languages. When I inquired about his ability he replied "I could speak 5 languages by the time I was 6, and all 7 by the time I was 10.

I probably started at him starstruck for a few seconds before I meagerly replied something along the lines of "wow, that's amazing etc." By the time this student knew 7 languages, I had only learned >100 vocabulary words in one.

Looking back on it now, the thing I wish I could change the most was my school's curriculum. I would have had language introduced to me as early as Kindergarten. As I spent K-4 studying Reading, Writing and Arithmetic, I could have been using this time to learn a second or even a third language like my classmate from the east. He told me his schools start teaching them English from a very young age and allow them to devote all of their cram school time towards foreign language.

In my case, despite not being introduced to language until the 5th grade and have terrible teachers throughout the whole journey, I was able to learn something out of pure determination and hard work. There are plenty of other students in the US who took the same route as me and got lost along the way, thus missing the crucial opportunity to learn a foreign language.

As Senator Paul Simon (not the musician) states "the United States is a linguistically malnourished country compared with many other nations. While ample opportunities exist in many other countries to develop proficiency in a second language, exposure to foreign languages in the United States is far from adequate." The rest of that article can be found here

 

[Terywj [태리]]

It would seem to me that only the kids who have already been exposed to a second or third language right from their childhood are the kids who would mainly understand the importance of being able to speak multiple languages. Kids who grow up speaking on English would find that there's "too much effort" and decide they wouldn't want to waste their time learning another language.

I see quite a contradictory statement in most if not all of the students at my school. Pretty much all of them either didn't take a language (our school doesn't require any, and two years is a "suggested option.") or only took the suggested two years. To put the point further Spanish 4 and Italian 4 contain less then 12 students, French 4 was cut, and the entire Sign Language program was dropped because "the school didn't find it necessary". When most people ask me if I know more than one language, I respond by saying yes, I know more than one. Once they realize I speak 5 languages, they respond, "That's amazing, I wish I could speak that many languages." Yet at the same time these are the kids I know who chose not to take a foreign language because they wanted to take certain electives, etc. To me, that's all talk but no sincere effort behind it, and I feel that most of the United States bears this sort of attitude - to be envious of other countries or people who are multilingual but don't care enough about the effort needed to attain such a level of fluency.

Another problem I do see is the financial situation, of course. Coming from an extremely poor school (all I'll say is that my school has no walls in 85% of our classrooms), I can see why programs needed to be cut. However, there were many alternatives to this. Half of our choosable electives are either empty or have around 10 people. If you get rid of those programs you can keep the foreign language ones. It makes no sense that instead of removing the unneeded electives, they remove the highest level foreign language program, rendering the students who have already taken 3 years of the language completely stopped and unable to continue their progress. Not to mention their college applications are cut short from 4 years of a foreign language because school just cut the program out.

For me, I simply just find learning languages fun. As I've said I knew Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, and English before starting elementary school. Spanish was a joke during middle school because of the previously mentioned lack of good teachers and determination because of that. I pursued Italian for three years in high school, only to not be able to take Italian 4 due to my stocking up on AP courses. Once college hits next year I plan on adding Japanese and Korean to my arsenal of languages. Vietnamese might be within reach, too. Not only is learning languages fun (for some), but as stated by th3kuzinator and myself there's just too many benefits of being able to have have fluency or even a conversational level of another language. Step up, America, you're falling behind.

 

[asianaussie]

I would argue there is no real downside to learning a language. Children are hypothesised to have a critical period in which picking up language occurs at an accelerated rate, and it is for this reason that first languages are so well-developed simply by being in social (that is, with other people, not social life) situations.

Guess what, there's no actual debate here if we all talked about what you've already mentioned, so I'm going to take the other side.

A good proportion of students will not find use with or have time for any another language, given that learning another language, particularly starting from middle school, is an absolute chore that takes away time needed to study for other subjects, particularly those which are fundamentals for their path of choice into colleges. Languages are learnt with time, practice and experience, and no amount of cramming or vocab memory will allow one to really become fluent in a language. Learning languages in primary years is almost a waste of time if these languages are not to be used in the future. There is no real way to increase fluency or aptitude in a language without constant exposure and use, which is clearly difficult to enforce in an English-speaking country. If a child is in a family that speaks this language often, then the language will be picked up alongside English. This is likely the only way a child will learn a secondary language early - constant exposure and forced use.

It is this chain of logic that leads me to say learning language should only be done if interest is in the equation. Weekend language schools for European and Asian languages are spread-out throughout the globe for native families to enrol their children in, and I think that's fine. Making children learn a language which they will not retain much of is time wasted that could have gone towards solidifying concepts of mathematics or even English (which, I might add, is arguably a better topic to focus on).

 

[1048576]

Language translation is just another skill worth specializing in that some people have a comparative advantage in. Is it worth it for Tiger Woods to learn a second language. No. He can just pay someone else to learn English. Is it worth it for a random software developer. Prolly not, for similar reasons, although in this case you'd prolly have to do some fanagling with one translator serving multiple people. Is it worth it for a student with no other prospects? Perhaps, although some people just don't have the knack. I took 4 years of Spanish and never learned how to roll my R's, and now I don't remember a thing.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Language translation is just another skill worth specializing in that some people have a comparative advantage in. Is it worth it for Tiger Woods to learn a second language. No. He can just pay someone else to learn English. Is it worth it for a random software developer. Prolly not, for similar reasons, although in this case you'd prolly have to do some fanagling with one translator serving multiple people. Is it worth it for a student with no other prospects? Perhaps, although some people just don't have the knack. I took 4 years of Spanish and never learned how to roll my R's, and now I don't remember a thing.

Just gonna address this real quick.

I'm directing the focus of this thread on learning a foreign language in schools, not obscenely rich people or graduate kids. The last point you mentioned has merit, but the inability to roll your R's is a fault of the teacher, and subsequently the fault of what seems to be a lax foreign language system. I'm not saying having strong foreign language programs should be forced, but shown as a good opportunity for students, instead of this lackluster system many schools have now.

 

[1048576]

Actually, my tongue is too fat, but w/e. It was useful when I lost my front teeth.

What do you suppose we give up to make the foreign language programs better? The way I see it, most things offered in schools are more important to more people than a foreign language. Of course it's nice to learn one, but it's like learning to fix a car. We need somebody to do it, but not everyone has to be able to.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Actually, my tongue is too fat, but w/e. It was useful when I lost my front teeth.

What do you suppose we give up to make the foreign language programs better? The way I see it, most things offered in schools are more important to more people than a foreign language. Of course it's nice to learn one, but it's like learning to fix a car. We need somebody to do it, but not everyone has to be able to.

I think that at least a standard of three years is required for graduation. Most of the top institutions already look for three or four years of a foreign language when viewing applicants or making application requirements, so I don't see why having a standard wouldn't hurt. At the same time, each individual school could easily determine which classes aren't being used as much (such as the Woodshop or Cooking electives in my school's example) and favor foreign language programs over those, etc. etc. A lot of small things can go a long way.

 

[asianaussie]

In that case, what would be deemed more important, a secondary language or the ability to cook, etc? Just because there are lower attendance rates for some classes doesn't mean those classes should be phased out in favour of others.

In Australia, languages give what you might call 'bonus points' in high school, so they're taken for the sake of these points. Can't an optional reward system like that be used, rather than taking out other classes?

 

[1048576]

Cooking seems like a skill every student should be taught. I'd eliminate a year of foreign language requirements for one year of cooking or some test to demonstrate competence in cooking.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

In that case, what would be deemed more important, a secondary language or the ability to cook, etc? Just because there are lower attendance rates for some classes doesn't mean those classes should be phased out in favour of others.

In Australia, languages give what you might call 'bonus points' in high school, so they're taken for the sake of these points. Can't an optional reward system like that be used, rather than taking out other classes?

Cooking seems like a skill every student should be taught. I'd eliminate a year of foreign language requirements for one year of cooking or some test to demonstrate competence in cooking.

My point was that essentially empty classes could be, not should be dropped, not in the way that weakens the program but enhances other programs instead. My point was not that cooking is a skill inferior to learning a foreign language, that was merely an example of a very empty elective at my school. And of course, this scenario(s) can differ from school to school.

 

[1048576]

You do understand that there are tradeoffs right? Especially in these times, where schools have already trimmed to the bone. You can't just add a foreign language classroom and teacher for free, and students aren't going to just spend an extra hour every day in school. So what shouldn't be taught instead?

When I was in high school, I took Spanish. My friend took computers. Guess who's kicking themselves now.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

You do understand that there are tradeoffs right? Especially in these times, where schools have already trimmed to the bone. You can't just add a foreign language classroom and teacher for free, and students aren't going to just spend an extra hour every day in school. So what shouldn't be taught instead?

When I was in high school, I took Spanish. My friend took computers. Guess who's kicking themselves now.

Exactly. There is a legitimate difference between adding a new program, classroom, teacher, whatever have you than actually giving a **** about the program in the school. Half the foreign language teachers get treated for ****, and why? Because they're unnecessary in the eyes of the school, and I'm arguing that there's a problem with that if that is the way people / school administrators see things. Imagine if mathematics or English teachers were dismissed as unnecessary because the uprising need of communications and programming.

How do European and Asian countries manage that, then? They care enough about the needs to establish a second language early on, and so don't end up half-caring about it by the time their students are in their high schools / colleges.

 

[asianaussie]

I learnt Japanese for about 9 years and kept next to nothing. All of my mediocre Japanese is from reading manga and watching anime since a few years back, rather than from my education. The difference here is interest.

I did do Chinese for something bordering on 14 years, but my family is also Chinese, so it stuck. Continual exposure was the thing here.

To be honest, unless you go on frequent exchanges or plan to move overseas or something, a secondary language won't even stick, much less have any applicability. When I was in Japan I got by on something like 4 phrases (arigatou, domo, sumimasen), greetings and knowledge of kanji through mandarin.

 

[Wrath`]

I think that at least a standard of three years is required for graduation. Most of the top institutions already look for three or four years of a foreign language when viewing applicants or making application requirements, so I don't see why having a standard wouldn't hurt. At the same time, each individual school could easily determine which classes aren't being used as much (such as the Woodshop or Cooking electives in my school's example) and favor foreign language programs over those, etc. etc. A lot of small things can go a long way.

If you were to make 3 years of language a standard for all high schools across America, the graduation rate would drop spontaneously. Some kids just don't pick up on language like others, I was one of those people, I mean I got by in middle school, but I quit when I learned I already met my requirement and also the fact that they did not have any languages that interested me. In the NY SUNY system you need 3 year of language, but thankfully I can take Japanese at my school.

 

[1048576]

Exactly. There is a legitimate difference between adding a new program, classroom, teacher, whatever have you than actually giving a **** about the program in the school. Half the foreign language teachers get treated for ****, and why? Because they're unnecessary in the eyes of the school, and I'm arguing that there's a problem with that if that is the way people / school administrators see things. Imagine if mathematics or English teachers were dismissed as unnecessary because the uprising need of communications and programming.

How do European and Asian countries manage that, then? They care enough about the needs to establish a second language early on, and so don't end up half-caring about it by the time their students are in their high schools / colleges.

Did you ever answer my question? What class should I remove from my schedule to make room for mandatory foreign language? I never took any superfluous electives, and I don't think I'd be willing to go to school for an extra hour every day. Many, many skills (auto-repair, woodshop, cooking, technology, law studies, etc...) are more important to some people than learning a foreign language.

 

[asianaussie]

It was put forward that schools would individually choose the class with the lowest attendance rates to exclude, but I still don't believe that's particularly fair treatment.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Did you ever answer my question? What class should I remove from my schedule to make room for mandatory foreign language? I never took any superfluous electives, and I don't think I'd be willing to go to school for an extra hour every day. Many, many skills (auto-repair, woodshop, cooking, technology, law studies, etc...) are more important to some people than learning a foreign language.

You can go to school for an extra hour if you wanted to? What the hell?
In that case then I cannot select something for you.

It was put forward that schools would individually choose the class with the lowest attendance rates to exclude, but I still don't believe that's particularly fair treatment.

And regardless of this choice available, it's stupid when the schools instead of they remove the sign language program which has been running with 120+ students, and the French IV class with 30+ participants. And I already mentioned the near-zero electives from before.