Dauric
Posts: 254
Joined: 7/13/2006 Status: offline
|
In theory I agree that we should teach multiple languages in our schools, and I'd be far less euro-centric about it. The moden economic dynamism of the "Far East" cannot be ignored, and we should be encouraging students to learn the language and culture of these countries that will in short order become massivey important trade and business partners to the U.S. Smaller trade colleges should make deals with state and federal colleges to open up the possibilities of what languages a student has access to when getting a bachelor's degree. I can see the use of spanish, but I can see the use of Chinese, Japanese, and East Indian languages as well. It was the economic and military success of the U.S.A. that encouraged it to be taught around the world, we must be mindful of that when deciding what languages to learn. In theory I agree with it. In practice I notice that our schools are underfunded, teachers are dealing with class-sizes that top 30 to 50 or more stuents. They're not teachers any more, they're not even babysitters, they're prison wardens. Cirriculum for our education institutions is either watered down, or under fire from extreme right and/or extreme left wing politics (the infamous Kansas BoE as a prime example). Maybe, when teachers get paid what they're really worth to a society and we can, as a people, seperate fact from opinion and successfully teach students a -first- language without the degredations of "Ebonics" or "Netspeak" being accepted (Yes, there are school districts whre it is acceptale for students to use "Netspeak" on tests), then it is worthwhile to talk about second languages. $0.02, Dauric.
|