Help w/ a language debate

[Aubrey]

Dh & I are going to kill ea other. :lol:

 

ETA: Fwiw, this is a gifted program.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Aubrey

[Jean in Newcastle]

So what's the debate?

[Chris in VA]

Uh, Aub, you left out "other." :D

[Aubrey]

So, am I allowed to vote, or would that be cheating? We've had to pause our conversation until the kids are in bed, it's getting so heated.

 

I'm sorry, but the fact that we're having a near-cussing fight (we don't ever get that bad) over some other state's language requirements for kids a different age than ours CRACKS ME UP. We're SO weird!!!

[Perry]

I can't answer. I don't think it should be required, but I'd be happy to see it offered.

[Aubrey]

I can't answer. I don't think it should be required, but I'd be happy to see it offered.

 

If it makes a difference (I think it does), it's for a gifted program.

[Remudamom]

Dh & I are going to kill ea other. :lol:

 

ETA: Fwiw, this is a gifted program.

 

I didn't vote, but I agree with you!:lol:

[Aubrey]

I didn't vote, but I agree with you!:lol:

 

I read this to dh, & he was pouting, until I pointed out that I hadn't said which side of the debate I was on. :D

[regentrude]

SOME foreign language should certainly be required (actually much earlier than Jr high).

Since most schools can only offer a limited number of language courses, there will always be people whose language of choice is not taught and who will complain.

I am from Germany and everybody learns English as first foreign language, it is required in 3rd grade (unless you live close to the French border, then it's French). For 2nd language in 6th grade there are usually 2-3 choices, but it is required to take one of those.

 

If Chinese is the only one that is offered, so be it. I don't think it is ideal - but better than no foreign language. And there are LOTS of people who speak Chinese - so under this aspect it is certainly a very useful language.

[elegantlion]

I can't answer. I don't think it should be required, but I'd be happy to see it offered.

 

:iagree:

[Ester Maria]

Many countries and schools require very specific languages to be studied and may or may not offer other languages as electives.

I don't have a problem with that as long as such a requirement is not a product of a certain "fad", but a product of history, relations with those countries, influence on the specific culture in which learning takes place, etc. Being that Chinese is of a rather ephemeral value in that which is usually referred to as "Western culture", its canonical texts and cultural associations, and as such an object of study of a fairly few passionate lovers of the "exotic East", yes, I WOULD have a problem if Italy decided that, instead of the typical French-English-German trio (with some Spanish), students must learn Chinese, because it's a fad and supposedly good for the economy. Or if it were the case with Japanese. Or Tagalog. Or Ukrainian. You get the point.

OTOH, I did not, and do not, have a problem with French being mandatory part of the framework of education in many public schools because it's so very intertwined with other areas, influential in our culture, the language of canonical readings of our culture, etc. And even if somebody might prefer to learn Dutch or Russian, I have no problem with the fact that there IS a mandatory language in the school, which doesn't happen to be everybody's first choice, but whose place in the curriculum is very understandable. Ideally, more languages are offered as well.

[Aubrey]

I didn't vote, but I agree with you!:lol:

 

whispering: it's time to vote now. we're getting SQUASHED.

[Remudamom]

I read this to dh, & he was pouting, until I pointed out that I hadn't said which side of the debate I was on. :D

 

I don't give a rat's patoot what side you're on, so am I.

[Remudamom]

Okay, ahem.... it's a fabulous idea!!

[abbeyej]

You're talking about a particular school with an opt-in program. I have no objection at all.

[Aubrey]

Many countries and schools require very specific languages to be studied and may or may not offer other languages as electives.

 

This was my argument.

 

I don't have a problem with that as long as such a requirement is not a product of a certain "fad", but a product of history, relations with those countries, influence on the specific culture in which learning takes place, etc. Being that Chinese is of a rather ephemeral value in that which is usually referred to as "Western culture", its canonical texts and cultural associations, and as such an object of study of a fairly few passionate lovers of the "exotic East", yes, I WOULD have a problem if Italy decided that, instead of the typical French-English-German trio (with some Spanish), students must learn Chinese, because it's a fad and supposedly good for the economy. Or if it were the case with Japanese. Or Tagalog. Or Ukrainian. You get the point.

 

Does it have to be an economically loaded decision? If there is no history of learning the language, I think someone could want to change that. No shared border? Hmmm...

 

The way I see it, this language requirement isn't about the language itself at all, but about expanding the boundaries of brain usage. Chinese is about as different from English as you can get, & learning to think that way, for a Westerner...seems like it would teach a kid to...think more broadly. Use different parts of the brain. Think non-linearly, maybe.

 

Anyway, around here, no foreign language is offered at all before 9th grade. So, in that sense, the jr high yrs "don't count" anyway--teaching a kid a language he's not liable to choose to learn on his own seems really...empowering.

 

And if you go into 9th g w/ Chinese under your belt, you're not going to choose the "easiest" language--you'll know you can handle anything. Your resume is more likely to stick out. Your earning potential (if you continue to pursue the language) is raised.

 

I just don't see a problem w/ educating people. I'll keep the rest of my opinion for dh's forgiving ears. :D

[TravelingChris]

I have a problem with Chinese because it is a complete different type of language from European and one that some kids will not be able to do. (It is tonal and has whole word symbols instead of letters). I don't really consider it a political issue but think it is wrong, nonetheless. I like to see choices in language study since I think that desire really helps learning.

[Aubrey]

I have a problem with Chinese because it is a complete different type of language from European and one that some kids will not be able to do. (It is tonal and has whole word symbols instead of letters). I don't really consider it a political issue but think it is wrong, nonetheless. I like to see choices in language study since I think that desire really helps learning.

 

But kids don't always choose vegetables, Latin, & grammar. Sometimes we choose thigns for them, to expand their interests & passions.

 

And I *completely* reject the idea that someone could not learn a particular language. Maybe a group of jr high kids won't master it. Fine. They will have immensely richer educational experiences for having learned what they did of it.

[Aubrey]

Uh, Aub, you left out "other." :D

 

Nope. I DELETED it.

 

Because, really, "other" isn't going to help quell the firestorm in my kitchen.

 

Dh: "But you're completely paranoid & suspicious about EVERYTHING!"

 

Me: "Weird, huh?"

[Remudamom]

Chinese is good because of the same reasons Latin is good. And we all know what those reasons are.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Hmmm. I couldn't see your bias in the way the options were phrased:lol:, could you? Sorry, I voted against you because of the word "required" - offered would be good, I think. Required? Not really.

[Aubrey]

Hmmm. I couldn't see your bias in the way the options were phrased:lol:, could you? Sorry, I voted against you because of the word "required" - offered would be good, I think. Required? Not really.

 

That's what he says.

 

And, fwiw, I let him approve the final version of his side of the argument. :D

[Ester Maria]

Does it have to be an economically loaded decision? If there is no history of learning the language, I think someone could want to change that. No shared border? Hmmm...

 

The way I see it, this language requirement isn't about the language itself at all, but about expanding the boundaries of brain usage. Chinese is about as different from English as you can get, & learning to think that way, for a Westerner...seems like it would teach a kid to...think more broadly. Use different parts of the brain. Think non-linearly, maybe.

 

Anyway, around here, no foreign language is offered at all before 9th grade. So, in that sense, the jr high yrs "don't count" anyway--teaching a kid a language he's not liable to choose to learn on his own seems really...empowering.

 

And if you go into 9th g w/ Chinese under your belt, you're not going to choose the "easiest" language--you'll know you can handle anything. Your resume is more likely to stick out. Your earning potential (if you continue to pursue the language) is raised.

Wait, we're talking two different things here - I'm talking on the level of a country (what if Italy decided to make Chinese compulsory in Italian public schools?), you're talking on the level of a specific, opt-in school that decided to make it their requirement.

 

I do have great issues with the former, but zero issues with the latter. There are schools, many of them publicly funded, in Italy which teach "unusual" languages (usually, though, in addition to the "normal" requirements, not as a substitute for those). For leaving state examinations (something like French bac) there are offered exams in French or German, but also in Hebrew or Russian (and Chinese too btw :D, but any of those exams is taken anyway only by kids from languages-oriented schools). There are also languages-oriented high schools with broader choice of languages, etc.

 

I don't speak Chinese so my opinion here isn't "qualified" :), but I don't think there is any kind of intellectual superiority involved in speaking Chinese as opposed to your "typical" Romance language (which, even though are often seen as "easy" options, VERY FEW people learn properly), though it does take objectively more time to master the script. But in my eyes, that's an additional reason not to learn Chinese :tongue_smilie:, because the effort it involves to learn the script might be better used to learn a couple of useful, big, culturally close European languages. Not that I think there is anything wrong about learning though! Any knowledge is a valuable knowledge, and I'm certainly happier if there are such options than if there aren't.

 

My only objection is that 4 years is far from enough to learn a foreign language properly. Kids will dabble a bit in the field, but on the long run, if not continued in high school and beyond, it won't be worth much and, consequently, won't "pay off" much in the future.

[Rosie_0801]

The way I see it, this language requirement isn't about the language itself at all, but about expanding the boundaries of brain usage. Chinese is about as different from English as you can get, & learning to think that way, for a Westerner...seems like it would teach a kid to...think more broadly. Use different parts of the brain. Think non-linearly, maybe.

 

I believe all languages (signed languages included) are stored in the same areas of the brain.

 

Sorry, Darl ;)

 

Actually, a signed language would be a better choice because it can be learned fluently in far shorter a time than Chinese can. It has use in every day life. It's quite handy even if you don't know any deaf people. It will expand the boundaries of brain usage because it is a visual language, which is about as different as you can get from a spoken language and has the added benefit that fluent signer no longer need to turn maps around to realign themselves every time they turn corners.

 

Rosie

Edited August 21, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[Jean in Newcastle]

Chinese is good because of the same reasons Latin is good. And we all know what those reasons are.

 

Actually (to be a bit serious here) the reasons aren't the same because English is not a Chinese derivative. The sounds are different, in fact Chinese is tonal so it isn't even a phonemic system, the writing is pictographs so that's totally different, the grammar is different. . . the one shared benefit would be for discipline pure and simple.

[Aubrey]

Wait, we're talking two different things here - I'm talking on the level of a country (what if Italy decided to make Chinese compulsory in Italian public schools?), you're talking on the level of a specific, opt-in school that decided to make it their requirement.[/Quote]

 

Yeah, taht would be scary & weird.

 

I don't speak Chinese so my opinion here isn't "qualified" :), but I don't think there is any kind of intellectual superiority involved in speaking Chinese as opposed to your "typical" Romance language (which, even though are often seen as "easy" options, VERY FEW people learn properly), though it does take objectively more time to master the script. But in my eyes, that's an additional reason not to learn Chinese :tongue_smilie:, because the effort it involves to learn the script might be better used to learn a couple of useful, big, culturally close European languages. Not that I think there is anything wrong about learning though! Any knowledge is a valuable knowledge, and I'm certainly happier if there are such options than if there aren't.

 

No, I do not think Chinese is intellectually superior to a Romance language, but I do think that learning an Eastern language (I don't know any, so I could be wrong) would stretch a westerner's mind because it is so different. Chinese, being pictographic, would be particularly different.

 

I think it's possible that the school program thought exactly that: wouldn't it be great if the kids learned an Eastern language? Then they went, Gee. We don't have enough kids to teach more than one language--it's going to be hard enough to find a teacher--let's just a) pick one Eastern language or b) hire the first teacher we can find who can teach one of those languages, & go w/ that.

 

My problem is w/ thinking it's all a conspiracy to indoctrinate our children w/ political objectives that run contrary to....yada, yada, yada.

 

How on earth I got to be the liberal in my house, I'll never figure out. :001_huh:

 

My only objection is that 4 years is far from enough to learn a foreign language properly. Kids will dabble a bit in the field, but on the long run, if not continued in high school and beyond, it won't be worth much and, consequently, won't "pay off" much in the future.

 

This is honestly, imo, a reason not to let kids do too much choosing--they'll dabble around too much. But choose the language or not, I agree.

[Aubrey]

I believe all languages (signed languages included) are stored in the same areas of the brain.

 

Sorry, Darl ;)

 

Actually, a signed language would be a better choice because it can be learned fluently in far shorter a time than Chinese can. It has use in every day life. It's quite handy even if you don't know any deaf people. It will expand the boundaries of brain usage because it is a visual language, which is about as different as you can get from a spoken language and has the added benefit that fluent signer no longer need to turn maps around to realign themselves every time they turn corners.

 

Rosie

 

You make a very interesting point about sign language!

 

But as far as it being visual--couldn't it be argued that Chinese is visual, too? I mean...I guess all languages are in one way or another, but I mean, more so or in a different way tahn, Western languages?

 

The language thing is part of an overall plan, though, I can't remember what else dh told me, he was so up in arms over the language part. (His face turns red & he stops breathing when I don't agree w/ him, & his eyes are popping out while he figures out what to say to me, & I'm either laughing so hard at him I'm choking, or I'm calling him names. Last time, it was "grass-bellied fiend." Quite a friendly insult, really. Not quite as friendly this eve, I'm afraid.:001_huh:) :lol:

 

ETA: Plus, remember, the question isn't: Is this a wise/beneficial decision in some way or completely a waste of time? But rather, is this an interesting & potentially good decision, or is it the first step in a plot to overthrow democracy as we know it?

[Ester Maria]

I have a problem with Chinese because it is a complete different type of language from European and one that some kids will not be able to do. (It is tonal and has whole word symbols instead of letters).

Allow me a small correction : actually, the only ones that might have issues with Chinese are those that would have had issues with other languages as well... the difference being that certain phonological occurances will be important in Chinese while rather ephemeral in the languages that we're used to (yes, you can speak with a noticeable foreign accent, but it won't nearly as often make a difference on the semantic level).

 

Regarding symbols, that's only time consuming, but for a person with normal sight, not impossible. The real question is whether it's, in lack of better expression, "worth the effort" (I mean yes, OF COURSE YES, it's learning and any learning is good, but let's step aside for a moment and watch the "practical side" of the story) - since the effort that mastering a language with such a script is comparable to the effort needed to learn a couple of European languages, for example. I might be just a sentimental European :D, but I'd always choose a box which contains Swedish, Portuguese and Dutch over the box which containts "only" Chinese. I'd see greater personal and cultural profit in the former - though, of course, there are many people that would see greater personal and cultural profit in the latter, and that's pefectly fine.

 

It's not that it's unlearnable, it's that it's a sort of knowledge that's very distant from our cultural reality (again, I'm speaking AS ITALIAN now, not as American). In one's education, it's a sort of an imperative to start with one's own world and its roots and important influences, and then "spread" to the unknown territories as desired - which is why we teach our kids classics, French, English (and Hebrew as Jews), rather than Chinese, Tagalog and Ukrainian. Not that there is anything inherently inferior or worse about the latter group of languages, but one's primary and secondary education usually IS very rooted into one's home culture, as it's assumed one should know it very well, have good fundamentals there, and then build onto it.

 

Still, IMO, Chinese is better than nothing, and any learning experience - "in box" or "out of the box" - will be valuable for kids and broadening their horizons.

[Danestress]

The way I see it, this language requirement isn't about the language itself at all, but about expanding the boundaries of brain usage. Chinese is about as different from English as you can get, & learning to think that way, for a Westerner...seems like it would teach a kid to...think more broadly. Use different parts of the brain. Think non-linearly, maybe.

 

 

 

 

I would need some really strong evidence that this is neurologically advantageous enough to make it worth the time investment, if the goal you suggest is really the goal of such a program. I suspect that it is a waste of mental real estate. Maybe "waste" is too strong of a word. But it seem to me that the time could be better used, and that the option to study Spanish or French should be there as an alternative. Are the schools teaching mastery of any second language?

 

I took five years of college/graduate level Japanese. I loved it. But I can't imagine designing a curriculum where every student in the state is supposed to take Japanese. None of them will learn it well enough to really achieve any real fluency. And if they then go on to take high school Spanish, what was the advantage gained? Why not start those same students in a rigorous Spanish program 3 years early?

[Aubrey]

I would need some really strong evidence that this is neurologically advantageous enough to make it worth the time investment, if the goal you suggest is really the goal of such a program. I suspect that it is a waste of mental real estate. Maybe "waste" is too strong of a word. But it seem to me that the time could be better used, and that the option to study Spanish or French should be there as an alternative. Are the schools teaching mastery of any second language?

 

I took five years of college/graduate level Japanese. I loved it. But I can't imagine designing a curriculum where every student in the state is supposed to take Japanese. None of them will learn it well enough to really achieve any real fluency. And if they then go on to take high school Spanish, what was the advantage gained? Why not start those same students in a rigorous Spanish program 3 years early?

 

No, 10 kids in the gifted program at one school in Florida will be required (as part of the opt-in program) to learn Chinese, among the other requirements of the program. This will not replace typical language requirements in highschool.

 

I think the point is the way the gifted often think: very outside the box. Is this the right way to approach that? Shoot, I don't know. But I think it's an exciting experiment.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Allow me a small correction : actually, the only ones that might have issues with Chinese are those that would have had issues with other languages as well... the difference being that certain phonological occurances will be important in Chinese while rather ephemeral in the languages that we're used to (yes, you can speak with a noticeable foreign accent, but it won't nearly as often make a difference on the semantic level).

 

Regarding symbols, that's only time consuming, but for a person with normal sight, not impossible. The real question is whether it's, in lack of better expression, "worth the effort" (I mean yes, OF COURSE YES, it's learning and any learning is good, but let's step aside for a moment and watch the "practical side" of the story) - since the effort that mastering a language with such a script is comparable to the effort needed to learn a couple of European languages, for example. I might be just a sentimental European :D, but I'd always choose a box which contains Swedish, Portuguese and Dutch over the box which containts "only" Chinese. I'd see greater personal and cultural profit in the former - though, of course, there are many people that would see greater personal and cultural profit in the latter, and that's pefectly fine.

 

It's not that it's unlearnable, it's that it's a sort of knowledge that's very distant from our cultural reality (again, I'm speaking AS ITALIAN now, not as American). In one's education, it's a sort of an imperative to start with one's own world and its roots and important influences, and then "spread" to the unknown territories as desired - which is why we teach our kids classics, French, English (and Hebrew as Jews), rather than Chinese, Tagalog and Ukrainian. Not that there is anything inherently inferior or worse about the latter group of languages, but one's primary and secondary education usually IS very rooted into one's home culture, as it's assumed one should know it very well, have good fundamentals there, and then build onto it.

 

Still, IMO, Chinese is better than nothing, and any learning experience - "in box" or "out of the box" - will be valuable for kids and broadening their horizons.

 

:iagree: with the first two paragraphs especially.

 

Speaking as someone who knows 4 languages (3 Western and 1 Eastern), and who knows quite a few of the Chinese characters, and has tried to learn Chinese unsuccessfully, I think Chinese is much harder! The tonal quality (you can make the same sound in a high spot, medium spot, low spot and it all means something different) is difficult for someone not used to that. There are other tonal languages (Vietnamese is one, I believe). It is harder to speak Chinese with an accent because often you are simply saying another word (and in my experience it always seemed to be a derogatory one:lol:).

 

The writing part? Mostly it is pure memorization - though you do learn that certain smaller symbols can be combined to make other related symbols - ie. the pictograph for tree is put with other pictographs for tree to make the symbol for forest but you can't rely on it being like that all the time. There is a reason that Chinese and Japanese kids cannot read an everyday newspaper until they are in Jr. High school.

[Remudamom]

Actually (to be a bit serious here) the reasons aren't the same because English is not a Chinese derivative. The sounds are different, in fact Chinese is tonal so it isn't even a phonemic system, the writing is pictographs so that's totally different, the grammar is different. . . the one shared benefit would be for discipline pure and simple.

 

Yes, it stretches the brain, and that's always good!:lol:

[Rosie_0801]

But as far as it being visual--couldn't it be argued that Chinese is visual, too? I mean...I guess all languages are in one way or another, but I mean, more so or in a different way tahn, Western languages?

 

Nope, that would not be a good argument. Written Chinese is just as visual as written English, they are flat on a piece of paper. Signed languages use three dimensional space.

 

ETA: Plus, remember, the question isn't: Is this a wise/beneficial decision in some way or completely a waste of time? But rather, is this an interesting & potentially good decision, or is it the first step in a plot to overthrow democracy as we know it?

 

Ok, calling the introduction of Chinese into a gifted program probably isn't a plot to overthrow democracy as we know it. I do agree with whoever it was who said it was a fad. I would see it as a potentially wise and beneficial decision if the kids actually graduated fluent in Chinese. Since they won't, I think the fad ought to be tossed out the window and an easier language should be chosen; something they have a chance of teaching to fluency. Mind you, if foreign languages are taught as badly in the US as they are here, which appears to be the case, I wouldn't believe anyone who told me they could teach to fluency unless it was Pig Latin they were teaching. Starting off something there isn't a chance of achieving seems silly. If people want to fluff around with a language, that's great, they can do that in their spare time, or a fun, brief unit study. Fluffing around with a language shouldn't be a class in any school, let alone a gifted program.

 

Rosie

[Amira]

I agree with those who think that if you're going to require one certain language that Chinese isn't the best one for American students to learn. My concern is about the limited use of Chinese. Even though it's the most widely spoken language in the world, it's still a regional language. I'd much rather see American kids required to learn Spanish or French. Even Arabic and Russian are spoken in more countries and more settings than Chinese.

 

I also agree with those who think there's not much value in any foreign language learning that American students get since it's nearly always worthless anyway.

 

I guess native-English-speaking children don't have one obvious language to learn the way most children in the world do.

[jewellsmommy]

No, 10 kids in the gifted program at one school in Florida will be required (as part of the opt-in program) to learn Chinese, among the other requirements of the program. This will not replace typical language requirements in highschool.

 

I think the point is the way the gifted often think: very outside the box. Is this the right way to approach that? Shoot, I don't know. But I think it's an exciting experiment.

 

 

I have to say that it seems like a waste of time if the kids will not press on with it. In 7th grade, the TAG program I was in did this except it was Russian. All of us were already taking a language as it was an elective choice. This was a program just for us. It was interesting but all I can remember now is how to say yes and no! I think our time could have been far better spent in a Latin and Greek root words study or extra math time or art. Ok I must also confess that I walked away from that class with an obsession with the male russian accent, especially when they say "bears." It makes me giggle and dh is always bewildered. He is afraid that some Russian man who works in a zoo is going to sweep me off my feet.:lol: You see the madness this created! World domination I tell you!

[EthiopianFood]

The way I see it, this language requirement isn't about the language itself at all, but about expanding the boundaries of brain usage. Chinese is about as different from English as you can get, & learning to think that way, for a Westerner...seems like it would teach a kid to...think more broadly. Use different parts of the brain. Think non-linearly, maybe.

 

And that should be a major goal of a gifted program. So there you go. You are definitely right. :iagree:

[Laura Corin]

I couldn't choose either of those. I think that Chinese is a great language to learn, but it takes a lot more application than most other languages. I don't think it's the best idea for all children. Perhaps in a gifted programme it would be good though.

 

Laura

[Melinda in VT]

I can't vote.

 

I absolutely do not think it is a "political ploy to seize the minds of our children."

 

I also don't think it's a great idea.;)

 

If I had a student who was eligible for that gifted program, I would view the Chinese requirement as a drawback, unless it was on top of another foreign language that was a) easier for an English-speaker to learn and b) more prevalent in Western culture.

 

If I had to pick, I'd vote for great idea because it's closer to a great idea than it is to a political ploy.

[Farrar]

I didn't vote either... I disagree with it and I actually do sort of think it's a political ploy - in that it's an easy way for politicians to tout the school and say they're oh so cutting edge.

 

But I also think it's just misguided to only offer one language at the jr. high level anyway. And while I think there are lots of good reasons to learn Chinese (heck I even speak it myself a little!) I don't think if you had to pick one language because of resources or something it's the one you should pick. On the other hand, if the school was a school of choice - a charter school or a public magnet school - then that would be different because kids and parents are opting into it.

[chiguirre]

I like the idea. In my area, middle schools only offer Spanish 1. The problem is that there are quite a lot of kids who already know the equivalent of Spanish 1 from their families or enrichment programs. I imagine this issue is even more prevalent in Florida (especially if this school is in Miami). If you eliminate Spanish because you'll have some fluent kids and some beginners and some in between, you're left with French or German, or perhaps Latin. I've studied all of those and enjoyed them all immensely, but I can't say that they're a better experience or more useful to a modern American than Chinese. It's true that Chinese is not very vital to understanding the history of Western civilization, but it's not hard to make a case that it will be a central element in our interconnected, world civilization going forward.

 

My godson studies Chinese in high school. He picked it even though he could have taken Spanish for Native Speakers and passed the AP Spanish Lit test after a year. He's worked very, very hard on Chinese and had to compete with kids who speak Mandarin at home, but he still signed up for Chinese 4. For him, it's been a wonderful experience and he's gained a lot of intellectual discipline from his Chinese studies. He's not fluent, but he's fallen in love with another culture and, really, that's as much as you can hope for from a high school language program. He'll have to spend some time in China in order to gain fluency, but I had to spend a summer in France in order to really learn to speak French colloquially and I didn't speak Spanish fluently until we moved to Argentina. I don't think it's fair to expect real near-native fluency to emerge from classroom instruction, you need to spend time immersed in a language in order to master it.

Edited August 21, 2010 by chiguirre
Whoops, almost killed a kitten!

[justamouse]

Chinese. As far as languages go, it's pretty easy. MUCH easier than English.

[BigMamaBird]

I voted your second choice, though it's a much more strongly worded comment than I'd make. I guess I'd just say that it's a very curious choice of a mandatory language when your user info says you live in Texas. Making Spanish a mandatory language would make much more sense to me given your area.

 

I'd be more likely to agree with the statement that "a school should strongly recommend taking a foreign language but the actual choice of language should be up to the parents and student."

[Dmmetler]

My assumption would be that they have limited resources and can't offer a range of languages, and feel that, if you can only offer one, Chinese (I assume Mandarin?) isn't a bad choice. That's the reason DD is doing Spanish as her first 2nd language. It's not that it's necessarily the best language to learn, but that it's the one DH and I both had at least some background in, and one where materials were readily available.

[Aubrey]

I voted your second choice, though it's a much more strongly worded comment than I'd make. I guess I'd just say that it's a very curious choice of a mandatory language when your user info says you live in Texas. Making Spanish a mandatory language would make much more sense to me given your area.

 

I'd be more likely to agree with the statement that "a school should strongly recommend taking a foreign language but the actual choice of language should be up to the parents and student."

 

It's not here--it's a program in FL. And as pp pointed out, there are a lot of kids (here & there) who already speak fluent Spanish.

[Laurie4b]

I voted yes because it's closest to what I think, but I don't think any language should be required. I don't think it matters whether it's gifted or not. I tried really hard to get my kids to learn Chinese when they were in elementary school. They were not interested. But I think it's farsighted to stress learning Chinese; I just wouldn't require it. If a child knows Chinese, Spanish, and English, they know the three most widely spoken languages on earth. To me, that just makes sense. It will be an asset in many, many jobs. Plus if they learn one tonal language, it will make it easier to learn others if needed.

[Laurie4b]

Nope, that would not be a good argument. Written Chinese is just as visual as written English, they are flat on a piece of paper. Signed languages use three dimensional space.

 

 

 

Rosie

 

What is different is that Chinese language isn't written phonetically, so I am guessing that it is read in a different part of the brain. It is read visually/symbolically.

 

Additionally, it's a tonal language and it's nearly impossible for adults to learn to hear those tones compared to those who learn younger.

[hornblower]

Hmmm, let me think....... Cantonese or Mandarin? Or Fukienese?

 

:lol:

 

 

No probs with this at all.

 

I am in Vancouver - it's a good language to learn on the Western seaboard....... When I worked at immigration at the airport, I used to know a bunch of phrases in both Cantonese & Mandarin --- things like "May I see your ticket?" & "how much money are you bringing?" "where will you stay?" but mostly I relied on the translators.....

 

& I don't have a problem with any given language being required in a school program.

[Teachin'Mine]

whispering: it's time to vote now. we're getting SQUASHED.

 

I hope my vote helped - I think it's awesome!!! :D

 

What's the difference - when I was in ps jr high French or Spanish was mandatory. Chinese is very challenging - hence being offered in the gifted program. :)

[Audrey]

I can't answer. I don't think it should be required, but I'd be happy to see it offered.

 

:iagree:

[Colleen]

Sorry, Aub, but I can't vote between those two extremes. Great idea? I don't think so. But as Abbey said, it's an optional program. Don't like it, don't participate. No great shakes. Political ploy? Stuff and nonsense. "Other" it is.;)