An Asian language in every school.

The thing about LOTE is that it can be combined with just about anything. PE, you can play games using the words for jump, run, square, triangle, ball, in, out etc. Art, you can use it to teach the names for colours, shapes, textures discuss the art/artists of a different culture. Maths, counting, shapes, sizes and so on can all be expressed in a different language. Primary school science concepts can be expressed in other languages. Instead of being a stand alone subject it can be woven through other subjects without diminishing the time that is given to those subjects.

Maybe other children won't watch DVD's in LOTE but if I sit my boys down in front of Cars they don't care if it's in English or their second language.

Can someone link an article or something about why learning a second language is important?

All I remember from school was it was a PITA and I learnt a few different ones due to changing schools, but mostly Japanese. I now know barely anything from any of them despite doing Japanese for 5 years. I just can't see in my case how in helped me at all. I don't even remember anything about Japanese culture and we even had a Japanese exchange student stay at our house in high school! I remember things that I was interested in like biology and ancient history. So I don't get making it compulsory. If a kid is not interested in it then they're not going to remember it anyways. Though I'm only talking from my experience and I could be totally abnormal, lol.

So would be interested to read some research on the benefits if anyone can point me in that direction!

Maybe it is time to start looking at immersion programs where other subjects are taught in a different language? That is how it was taught at my school.

How many articles do you want? lol.
Give me a minute and I'll hit you with a few...

http://voxy.com/blog/2011/02/why-it-...ew=infographic
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-...tory?track=rss
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0418152332.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0218092529.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...fl-linguistics - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/studie..._part_1_en.pdf
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/20...mp=clp-sb-ascd
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Lifestyle_11_1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/sc...n.html?hp&_r=0
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesig...php?nid=232018
http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morn...y/12040315.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/op...lism.html?_r=3
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...ms?ps=sh_sthdl
http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_ch...?storyid=29226
http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/column...ingual-1.74072

Happy reading :rofl:

Yikes! LOL. Thank you! :)

Lots of them are quite short. Apparently languages are very good for preventing dementia.

I learnt Indonesian from year 3 - 9 compulsory and then continued it in year 10,11 and 12 and went on to do it for my TEE (same as HSC for those of you in the east). I now work in the travel industry and cannot even begin to explain how valuable it has been for me!

:

---

But I do feel that the language should be taught by someone who is fluent in both English and the language being taught. I was taught Japanese by a teacher who had little understanding of the language - as a result, my whole year 10 class failed because she was unable to teach us adequately. So if it can't be taught adequately, it shouldn't be taught at all... but that's my view.

---

This is so true. I had excellent japanese teachers in years 8-10 but changed schools. I really wanted to continue Japanese so went to the only one in the area that offered it. Waste of time. My year 11 teacher spent most of the time whinging about his year 8 CE class & my year 12 teacher just wrote sentences from the teachers guide up on the board. Needless to say, my plans to continue on in uni dropped & now I can't remember much except hello, goodbye, please & can count to 10 :lol:

THe school DS will be going to offers Japanese so it will be interesting to see how much comes back to me :)

:

---

The thing about LOTE is that it can be combined with just about anything. PE, you can play games using the words for jump, run, square, triangle, ball, in, out etc. Art, you can use it to teach the names for colours, shapes, textures discuss the art/artists of a different culture. Maths, counting, shapes, sizes and so on can all be expressed in a different language. Primary school science concepts can be expressed in other languages. Instead of being a stand alone subject it can be woven through other subjects without diminishing the time that is given to those subjects.

Maybe other children won't watch DVD's in LOTE but if I sit my boys down in front of Cars they don't care if it's in English or their second language.

---

I see your point, and to an extent that is already done if the teacher is motivated to do it (DD2 had a HSIE unit this year about Japan and they learnt numbers and a few words etc), but that's a long way short of teaching them a language properly with a teacher who is equipped to do it isn't it? Better than nothing at all, but still well short of what you want, which is for every child to become fluent in another language.

Thanks for all those Onyx. The evidence very clearly seems to suggest that being bilingual is advantageous. Although I still don't agree that making foreign language compulsory in all schools is the answer. I don't know one person at my school who came out actually 'bilingual' after having studied another language at school. We could all say a few sentences but that's far from 'bilingual' IYKWIM. So I still don't see the point. It was just a waste of time for a lot of people. I think for sure it should be available to all students so that the ones who are interested are able to learn. But it's not for everyone. I'm much more interested in my kids learning things that they enjoy. I think that has a far bigger impact, than making them sit through things they are not interested in at all.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression learning a language in school isn't so much that it will mean you are bilingual, but more that you have stimulated that part of the brain and have given it a basis to expand in if you so choose.

The Australian curriculum does not support learning a language as do say our European neighbors efforts. They are to soley speak that language in class, learn the history, geography, culture of the chosen language. That is truly being educated in a language.

I also don't agree (this is purely personal) that my daughter shouldn't be made to something she doesn't like. If she doesn't like maths, bad luck. You need to learn it and it will benefit you. I didn't like physics. I had to stick at it and I still worked hard to get A's. In the work force we all have to do jobs we don't like. We can't say to our boss, "oh um typing doesn't suit me, can I just file?". To me language is the same. It's hard work but the benefits are huge. As onyx said, it helps with the understanding of our own language. TBH, if I had done German I would have had no idea what a past participle was. We certainly didn't learn it in English.

This is all just my opinion though! :) everyone is entitled to their own!

I was just talking about the articles Onyx posted. They showed the advantages from being bilingual, but IMO taking a language class at school isn't going to make you bilingual so is not going to have the same effect IYKWIM?

I agree, there is some stuff kids do need to learn i.e. reading, writing, maths, etc. But IMO a second language isn't one of them. It's not essential for life, you know? Most people get by just fine with only one language. So I wouldn't be pushing my child to do it if they were really not into it. I would rather they spent time on something they valued more.

I can see your point. I am just thinking "ideally".

I just feel the curriculum keeps getting "dumbed down", but I guess the onus is on us parents to supplement. And you're right, I wouldn't force my child to continue with language at the cost of a more accepted essential subject, but I also think that choice shouldn't have to be made itms.

:

---

The Australian curriculum does not support learning a language as do say our European neighbors efforts. They are to soley speak that language in class, learn the history, geography, culture of the chosen language. That is truly being educated in a language.

---

There are some schools do have language programs that stretch across other classes. My school for example did when I went to school but I don't think they do anymore. It was called German immersion and things like history, social science and science were taught completely in German.

:

---

I was just talking about the articles Onyx posted. They showed the advantages from being bilingual, but IMO taking a language class at school isn't going to make you bilingual so is not going to have the same effect IYKWIM?

---

How does one become bilingual if they don't learn a second language? You have to start somewhere and 12yrs of schooling is a long time to be exposed to a language. It is how people in Europe become bilingual so it is possible.

All that said I wouldn't be forcing my children to take a language against their will but I would be encouraging and supporting it. I did not initially appreciate the piano lessons my parents encouraged until I came to learn other things I enjoyed (drums, flute and trumpet) and realised how it built the foundation to make those things a lot easier! I think language is similar, it sets up a good base to be worked off.

I think you can enjoy learning anything with the right people and environment though. I think sometimes passions need not be something that was always internally bubbling but can be inspired by the people who introduce them to us in a way we can relate to. I will always be following the lead of my children but I think that involves exposing them to many different things so they can know what sort of options there are to choose from in the first place.

:

---

The Australian curriculum does not support learning a language as do say our European neighbors efforts. They are to soley speak that language in class, learn the history, geography, culture of the chosen language. That is truly being educated in a language.

---

Some schools do. My boys are at a bilingual school. 2.5 days a week they are taught in their second language. They do maths, literacy, PE, arts etc in that language. Their teachers are either native or have very high level fluency because the school's expectation is that excluding situations where a student is at risk that the teacher only communicates in the second language. DS1 had no idea that his kindy teacher could speak English until the last week when he busted her talking to me in English.
I am unfailingly grateful that I can access an education like this via our public education system and I wish that other students could have the same access.

But even a few hours a week is better than no language options.

:

---

How does one become bilingual if they don't learn a second language?

---

LOL. What I mean is that the normal way they teach a second language in school (i.e. a couple of classes a week with a teacher who is not fluent in the language anyway, in my case) is not going to make a person bilingual (without a lot of other input anyway!). Teaching it by immersion like your school did is definitely the way to go I think, but that's just not practical for all schools. So making it compulsory for all school kids is not really achieving anything because most are not going to be getting these benefits (because from what I read they were talking about the advantages of being bilingual, which is not achievable for the majority of school kids taking a class at a normal school). Do I make sense??

:

---

There are some schools do have language programs that stretch across other classes. My school for example did when I went to school but I don't think they do anymore. It was called German immersion and things like history, social science and science were taught completely in German .

---

We had the same, but it was only in high school and it was just German. Our teacher though was from Germany and she knew the benefits of us being taught this way.

:

---

Some schools do. My boys are at a bilingual school. 2.5 days a week they are taught in their second language. They do maths, literacy, PE, arts etc in that language. Their teachers are either native or have very high level fluency because the school's expectation is that excluding situations where a student is at risk that the teacher only communicates in the second language. DS1 had no idea that his kindy teacher could speak English until the last week when he busted her talking to me in English.
I am unfailingly grateful that I can access an education like this via our public education system and I wish that other students could have the same access.

But even a few hours a week is better than no language options.

---

If only we had enough bilingual teachers to do this! It's such a good way. And I agree with the the couple hours being better than nothing. When adults want to learn a language we get far less time than that!

:

---

LOL. What I mean is that the normal way they teach a second language in school (i.e. a couple of classes a week with a teacher who is not fluent in the language anyway, in my case) is not going to make a person bilingual (without a lot of other input anyway!). Teaching it by immersion like your school did is definitely the way to go I think, but that's just not practical for all schools. So making it compulsory for all school kids is not really achieving anything because most are not going to be getting these benefits (because from what I read they were talking about the advantages of being bilingual, which is not achievable for the majority of school kids taking a class at a normal school). Do I make sense??

---

Yeah, I get it now lol. I think it is just one of the limitations of a mainstream school in that you have less wiggle room to individualise. Say if language is an option then what are other students doing during that time? Will the language students be missing out or will the other students be wasting time doing meaningless tasks anyway? I guess how I see it is that making it compulsary at least gives everyone the oppurtunity and exposure and those that are keen can seek to further extend it. This is probably coloured by my own experience but most extra things worked this way at my school; you took a semester in textiles and design and architecture and wood work and several languages etc with the opportunity to continue afterwards. Maybe curriculum need to start this sort of approach? You get some exposure then the choice about where you want to focus starting early on.

The benefits I have read about are said to be on a scale so somebody who is bilingual will get the maximum benefit but every little bit helps, like breastfeeding I guess? Each time your brain has to travel the pathways to a different language is strengthening it.

The curriculum is crowded enough. Schools will never please everyone.
I know people have the best intentions but really...
Environmental education
Drug Ed
Child safety
Bike and road safety
Sex Ed
First aid and cpr
Languages other than Enlish
Financial literacy...

Where should we fit this in?
Especially when teachers are already busy teaching
Reading
Writing
Talking and listening
Spelling
Information technology
Number processes
Numeration skills
Measurement
Space and geometry
Data analysis
Problem solving skills
Sport and fitness
Swimming
Gymnastics
Training kids for competition sport
Creative arts
Performing arts
Science
Design and make skills

All while they are busy...
Praising children
Assemblies
Dealing with behaviour
Dealing with playground issues
Meeting with parents
Meeting with other teachers
Developing teaching units
Improving their teaching through training and development
Putting up displays
Preparing for concerts
Creating a beautiful stimulating environment for your child to learn in.
Preparing children for testing
Assessing
Reporting
Making costumes and props
Marking work
Looking after kids that are hurt
Organising excursions

I could go on and on...

At the end of the day, Parents need to take more responsibility for their child's education and realise that eduction is a partnership between school and home.

Instead of thinking that we are dumbing down our education system by not teaching another language how about you think about how much is included in your child's education and be grateful that their are some wonderful teachers out there that are passionate about education and teaching and put endless hours into a career that is so often under appreciated and not recognised for what it should be.

Rant over. Not wanting to offend. Just want people to think about the reality of things.

Jellyfish- Yeah, I guess I was thinking more of in highschool, so no one would be left out doing nothing, just taking other classes, and another language could be an elective.

I agree with Alibaby too. I don't think the education system is being dumbed down at all. Actually, IMO the opposite. There is so much crammed in to so little time that our kids are supposed to learn. I would be happy for my kids to just be taught the most important stuff at school (though I guess that's the problem, everyone has different views on that) and I take responsibility for the extras. But then again, there are kids who's parents aren't able to or won't do that so I guess having it at school is better for them. Now I'm arguing with myself so I guess there's no simple answer :rofl:

I agree alibaby. I mentioned before teachers are doing a great job.

A lot of your list though still fits into main categories such as: English, maths, PE, health,science etc.

I guess I am biased though. I went to a country school so we didn't have the luxuries of "nutrition, child studies, business studies etc". We had our core subjects and we excelled and had some of the best grades in the state. When I say getting dumbed down I mean, children are being given all these "fun" options so that they stay in school (another thread entirely I know), but are barely competent in the important areas that would help them excel in their chosen fields later. Again this is personal, but I would much rather my child learn a language than say "confidence building".

I also agree 100% parents need to support the teachers and teach from home too. At the end of the day, they are OUR children, not the teachers.

:

---

I agree alibaby. I mentioned before teachers are doing a great job.

A lot of your list though still fits into main categories such as: English, maths, PE, health,science etc.

I guess I am biased though. I went to a country school so we didn't have the luxuries of "nutrition, child studies, business studies etc". We had our core subjects and we excelled and had some of the best grades in the state. When I say getting dumbed down I mean, children are being given all these "fun" options so that they stay in school (another thread entirely I know), but are barely competent in the important areas that would help them excel in their chosen fields later. Again this is personal, but I would much rather my child learn a language than say "confidence building".

I also agree 100% parents need to support the teachers and teach from home too. At the end of the day, they are OUR children, not the teachers.

---

What are these 'fun' options you speak of? What is wrong with trying to target the needs of the students? I think the partnerships that high schools are forming with TAFES are an excellent and alternative way of providing learning and education to students who want to take a vocational path instead of a university one.

I am meaning that we have a building company and we get students coming for apprenticeships. We support apprentices completely (obviously) and I am all for vocational training. But when a 17 year old kid can't do basic maths to work out cutting lengths of timber, or know how to measure or even fill in his time sheet because he can't write properly, I have an issue with them not having to do the basics at school. It's not fair on them.

Yeah, I get what you mean. That's a really complex issue though. At 17, if he still can't do the basics like that, then there is something else going on that is individual to that child, and not a reflection of the education system as a whole.