Americans' Lack of Education in History Is a Worry .

[PrincessLeppard]

It has the money to pay teachers (not as much as they deserve, but that's another story). We import people to fill all sorts of jobs that we can't fill domestically -- everything from farm workers to software engineers. Why not language teachers too?

Except it doesn't. My school lost two teachers last year due to budget cuts (would've been more if the union hadn't stepped in). We were not the only school in that situation.

[taf2002]

Taf2002, I can honestly say there's plenty of bashing of Chinese education/Russian education/other countries' education--it's just that they are usually in a forum where people write Chinese or Russian or their native language, not on FSU where there're so many American posters and much fewer Chinese and Russian posters. :) Heck, I myself engaged in a thorough trashing of Chinese history education not so long ago. :P

I think there was a Chinese thread not so long ago where the American living standard was upheld as a benchmark or a model. So discussions about America aren't all trashy. :)

FWIW, the author of the WSJ article is a former under secretary of the Army

So bashing Americans is ok because other countries get bashed on other message boards? And it's ok coming from you since you also bashed Chinese education? What I can't understand is why anyone is concerned with the education obtainable in other countries. What's it to you? Unless you're planning to send your kids to be educated in the US, it's none of your business.

FWIW, I've been to Canada many times to visit my in-laws & the misconceptions they all have about Texas don't fill me with awe for their education system.

[jlai]

So bashing Americans is ok because other countries get bashed on other message boards? And it's ok coming from you since you also bashed Chinese education? What I can't understand is why anyone is concerned with the education obtainable in other countries. What's it to you? Unless you're planning to send your kids to be educated in the US, it's none of your business.
system.

I Hate to say it but you really are getting it all wrong

Could it be possible that I care deeply about history educ and have relatives in both sides of the pacific and they are all not getting a sufficient understanding of history?

I really don't see where all your anger is coming from. For one thing I have little opinion about what Americans know about Canada

[taf2002]

You were not talking about anyone on the other side of the pacific. You said "I'm more concerned about the lack of global focus in the US curriculum in general (I'm sure different states differ but mostly I don't think there's an emphasis in studying about the world, foreign languages and so on--at least compared to other countries."

I'm not angry. I'm mostly tired of people taking pot shots at Americans for no apparent reason except we're a convenient target.

[jlai]

You were not talking about anyone on the other side of the pacific. You said "I'm more concerned about the lack of global focus in the US curriculum in general (I'm sure different states differ but mostly I don't think there's an emphasis in studying about the world, foreign languages and so on--at least compared to other countries."

I'm not angry. I'm mostly tired of people taking pot shots at Americans for no apparent reason except we're a convenient target.

This is intended to be a discussion of US history education as related to the wall street article. The focus is of course on US history educ problems. I did bring up more than once that US is not alone in this problem and Chinese history students are also disengaged.

I am more than happy to start another thread on Chinese history education but with fewer posters who are keen on the subject I don't see the possible new thread going anywhere

[agalisgv]

Except it doesn't. My school lost two teachers last year due to budget cuts (would've been more if the union hadn't stepped in). We were not the only school in that situation. I'm rather shocked someone could be living in the US and not be aware of massive budget shortfalls impacting schools across the country.

Point of clarification--peace corps "volunteers" cost about $46,000-50,000 per volunteer. They aren't free by any means (as neither were their domestic counterparts Americorps or Teach for America volunteers).

Also, just bc someone is a native speaker of a language doesn't make that person qualified to teach. If so, every English-speaking person in the US would be qualified to teach English language arts and literature, and clearly that's not the case. Chicago public schools tried using native language speakers to teach foreign language (they didn't have to go abroad since any major city in the US has a plethora of people who speak English as a second/third language), but a very high percentage of them couldn't pass basic literacy tests in English. They simply weren't qualified to teach in US public schools. I realize some think anyone off the streets could waltz into a classroom and be an effective teacher, but teachers really do have skill sets that go beyond basic knowledge.

IMO, a major reason foreign language fluency isn't what it is in some other countries is bc there's no obvious other language that should be taught as a matter of course in the US. On an international level, English is the closest to a lingua franca today. So learning English is pretty common for other countries. French makes sense to learn in Canada bc of Quebec, but not so much in the US. Spanish can be meaningful if you live in certain parts of the US, but not so much elsewhere. Couple that with Native nations in the US not appreciating another European language being shoved down their throats, and many Native nations living in areas where Spanish is more present, Spanish is not such an obvious choice.

Ime, it's not that schools don't teach foreign languages or don't start early enough, it's that each school empasizes different languages so there isn't a single language being consistently taught. As an anecdote, my kids started off in a school that taught French starting at age 3. That was the only language taught. But we moved after a couple years and their new school only taught Spanish. So Spanish it was. When we switched from private to public school, the public school only taught Italian. Don't know why, but there you go. Because of budget constraints, the district consolidated schools and now Portuguese was the language. We later moved and the new school only taught Chinese. When they moved to upper elementary, they moved to new schools where we were back to Spanish. When my oldest got to high school, it was the first time he had a choice in foreign language, so he chose Latin.

Also during that time, they went to Native language schools. First it was supposed to be in Cherokee, but bc of personnel issues they switched to Choctaw midstream. Then they switched to Muscogee. Now it's in Kiowa.

Those are the realities of foreign language instruction. Each school picks what they believe is relevant and for which they have resources. When students move, school personnel changes, districts consolidate, or budget crunches arise (which happens every single year nowadays), you'll see dramatic changes in the foreign languages offered. And a major reason for this is there isn't an obvious second language choice, so each school picks what they want. And that can change as the surrounding community demographics change.

Finally, I agree with jlai that people tend to assume what they know is inherently valuable while what they don't know isn't. If people value foreign languages, they view that as having intrinsic worth. If people value trade work, they find carpentry, construction, plumbing, etc to be intrinsically valuable and not so much other things. If you use and value math, that will seem inherently useful, while if the only math you use is to balance your checkbook, it seems like a waste of time.

IMO, the point of teaching things like foreign languages, calculus, literature and criticism, world history, physics, etc is not because most people will use any of that in their adult lives. Rather it's bc when someone eventually chooses a career path, they will have the necessary skill sets to effectively pursue that. It's very difficult to become an electrical engineer if the only math you've had when you enter college is beginning algebra. It's difficult to become a social studies teacher if when you enter college you've never been exposed to history courses other than the US. Other countries address this issue by tracking students from 10-14 yo. In the US, we try to keep students' options open until they reach college. But that will necessarily mean learning a lot in different areas that one won't make use of much as an adult. But the flipside is that gives students more flexibility to switch paths as adults should they so desire.

[Prancer]

The Austrian math teachers were hired to teach in secondary schools. Hiring foreigners to teach language classes from, say, the seventh-grade level on up would be a step in the right direction.

Our local school district does have foriegn language teachers starting in sixth grade. And I don't believe that's uncommon.

But Nekativii is right--that's too late. Ask anyone who teaches languages; there are a few people who have the ability to become proficient in a language after early childhood, but not many. Starting in middle school isn't going to be any more effective than starting in high school.


I'm sure things vary widely by district, but, there are elementary schools that employ teachers to teach one subject -- art, music, reading development, P.E., etc. There probably already are districts out there where elementary teachers are hired just to teach language classes.

Sure, and that happens here, too. But guess what? The schools can only afford one of each type of teacher, so the kids get one hour a week of what is known locally as a "special." They rotate between subjects every quarter. And I live in a wealthy school district that hasn't yet cut music, art, and PE, unlike a lot of districts. One hour a week of foriegn language--provided that the schools had a slot FOR that one hour a week--is not enough to make even a bright student with natural ability bilingual.


Also, schools might develop programs where two teachers share teaching responsibilities, and some of the instruction in non-language subjects is done in, say, German or Japanese instead of English. Again, this probably already happens.

Of course it does. It does nothing at all to cut down on the number of teachers required, however, but does increase the required skills for the teachers.

Making foriegn language education effective would require a massive restructuring of the entire educational system, which brings us back to the issue of incentive. There simply isn't enough incentive to do this.


Also, just bc someone is a native speaker of a language doesn't make that person qualified to teach. If so, every English-speaking person in the US would be qualified to teach English language arts and literature, and clearly that's not the case.

Thank you. I occasionally get a non-native English speaker in class who thinks she is qualified to teach her language because she speaks it and is angry that the school districts don't agree with her. I always point out that *I* have a degree in English or I wouldn't be teaching her class, even though English is my first language. Somehow, this never seems to occur to a lot of people.


Ime, it's not that schools don't teach foreign languages or don't start early enough, it's that each school empasizes different languages so there isn't a single language being consistently taught

That has definitely not been my experience. Foriegn language teaching here starts in middle school, period, and the kids get to choose from several languages. That's not just in my district, but in the seven or eight local districts I am familiar with. Rural schools around here, however, often have only one or possibly two choices of language and usually do not have advanced classes.


Finally, I agree with jlai that people tend to assume what they know is inherently valuable while what they don't know isn't. If people value foreign languages, they view that as having intrinsic worth. If people value trade work, they find carpentry, construction, plumbing, etc to be intrinsically valuable and not so much other things. If you use and value math, that will seem inherently useful, while if the only math you use is to balance your checkbook, it seems like a waste of time.

You see this on this board with reading--we all tend to assume that leisure reading is important because so many of us value it. But is it? Well, it is if you value leisure reading.

[Lara]

I am not from USA, but I would want to comment the topic of language teaching in USA.

If I am not mistaken, most of the students in USA start a second language in high school. From biological stand point that is way too late. We are much more adapt for learning languages before puberty. Basically, it is the earlier the better.


Couldn't agree more. I've seen for myself what a negative difference getting French as a second language starting in 4th grade made with my brother (compared to my starting in kindergarten and going to a French elementary school). He never mastered it nearly as well, which will always hurt in terms of future employment opportunities in Montreal. And we're not even talking high school which is definitely too late IMO.

If you care at all, start your kids as early as possible. I honestly wouldn't object to it being mandated no later than 1st grade. We live in an increasingly global world and even if you don't live in say a heavy Hispanic area, knowing Spanish will still help with other languages.

[Prancer]

I honestly wouldn't object to it being mandated no later than 1st grade.

Okey dokey. Where will you find qualified teachers, how will you pay them, and where will you slot the language teaching time into the day? What are you willing to cut from the existing school day?

[agalisgv]

That kinda goes to the larger point of lack of uniformity in teaching, instruction method, and curricula. At the elementary level, I see tremendous variation in what is taught and how. As schools get into the higher grades, there's more consistency (though still a lot of variation relative to other countries IMO). To have dedicated foreign language teachers, you need enough students in a single grade to make that practical. That works for larger middle and high schools where students switch classes each period. It doesn't work so well for six year olds, or where there are only 1-2 classrooms in a particular grade.

So foreign language instruction at the elementary levels tends to be rather haphazard and ineffective.

Moving a fair amount doesn't help either--particularly across states or regions. Course not everyone does that, but quite a few do.

[Prancer]

Moving a fair amount doesn't help either--particularly across states or regions. Course not everyone does that, but quite a few do.

Even moving across town can be a huge difference. There are still gaps in my education from attending three different schools in sixth grade, even though I was basically in the same school district.

[agalisgv]

We live in an increasingly global world and even if you don't live in say a heavy Hispanic area, knowing Spanish will still help with other languages. Conversely, learning an indigenous language will help you even more with other languages. If you can learn an indigenous language, you can learn anything :cool:. Shouldn't we be doing that instead considering how many Native languages are on the brink of extinction?

[my little pony]

who will resurrect sanskrit? :drama:

[agalisgv]

((((Sanskrit and all the other unloved languages out there))))

[milanessa]

who will resurrect sanskrit? :drama:

:rofl: My bil has a minor in Sanskrit.