It appears that the days of foreign languages may be limited in England as debate continues as to whether they should be removed from the curriculum altogether. Currently students in English schools have to study a foreign language - usually one of French, German or Spanish.
My personal view is that, actually, languages should be part of the core of modern teaching and, in England, should be taught in much greater detail than they actually are at the moment. I studied German at school; I also studied Spanish for one year. Yet I felt that the basis of teaching these languages was (and no doubt still is) largely based on set phrases rather than the understanding of the grammar and the amassing of vocabulary. More should be done to give students a chance to understand how the language works.
A second language is invaluable and greater emphasis should be placed thereon. There may even be a case to start teaching languages at a much lower age than the current age of 11.
Do you agree?
2006-11-27 06:24:31 · 10 answers · asked by eurotraveller 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
Yes, I agree.
Learning the *way to learn languages* as you mention is much more ennabling than just rote memorization of some phrases from one particular language. Once you see how grammar and vocabulary combine to build a language, it's easier to learn more of them. I was lucky and had a wonderful French teacher in high school who taught us *about* languages as much as French vocabulary, making it much easier for me to learn Japanese, Tagalog, Chinese, Spanish...
Learning languages not only helps you function better in a world made smaller by fast travel and international business, it also exposes you to the culture speaking the language, which is always a good thing.
I agree with you 100%!
2006-11-27 06:30:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree up to a point, but until children have some notion of English grammar, punctuation and spelling, how on earth are they going to cope with other languages? On this point, I agree entirely with the late Sir Winston Churchill. "Naturally I am biased in favour of boys learning English; and then I would let the clever learn Latin as an honour and Greek as a treat. But the only thing I would whip them for is not knowing English. I would whip them hard for that." (The last sentiment has to be suppressed in the light of the Human Rights legislation, but the man certainly had a point!) Churchill was, admittedly, a man with no apparent ability to learn foreign languages and maybe this could acount for his bias. But when it came to English, there was no faulting him!
If our children had a proper grasp of English, then I would advocate teaching foreign languages from the age of eight onwards. Until they are able to master their own language, however, attempts to teach other languages will be fraught with difficulty, which is probably the true reason for the quiet dropping of the teaching of foreign languages from the curriculum.
2006-11-27 08:10:48 · answer #2 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do agree that languages should be taught when children are younger - and that is why there are plans for this to happen quite soon. Already, student teachers are able to choose modern foreign languages as their subject specialism, so a new wave of teachers will be going out into primary schools who are qualified to teach languages there. Lots of primary schools do this already and have done for several years.
2006-11-27 06:29:00 · answer #3 · answered by Funky Little Spacegirl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, but then I also wonder why the parents don't do it at home even before children begin school. My daughter is starting my grandson (20 months old) on the "Muzzy in Gandoland" Spanish course. The earlier you can start it, the closer to native they will be.
I know a couple, he is Armenian, she is French. Their children speak to the father in Armenian, to the mother in French, and they speak English at home and among their friends. They learned Spanish at school, but they learned so much faster than the rest of the class, that the teacher couldn't keep up with them.
2006-11-27 06:38:19 · answer #4 · answered by rbwtexan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
English children that were born in this country should be given a choice to learn a secondary language. Why is it then that Indian and other children that come to this country are not taught the English language? It should be down to choice and not forced upon them but English should be taught if people choose to live in our country.
2006-11-27 06:29:03 · answer #5 · answered by Scatty 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cursive won't be desire i visit be a Senior in extreme college and that i've got written cursive for one challenge. No instructors that I or my acquaintances have had require this. They spend plenty time coaching it to us whilst have been youthful and we don't like it. i think of it particularly is valuable and the place the scholars would commonly study cursive in a lesson plan could get replaced with the class or states susceptible factors so as that they can bigger themselves at something they don't understand, quite than waste time on something they do no longer desire.
2016-10-04 10:36:22 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Germany they Start teaching A new language for the kids already in Kindergarten ........ So why can't we do it here ? It is always good to know another language !
2006-11-27 06:27:05 · answer #7 · answered by silverearth1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
agree with majority of what you said.
many people from overseas speak a few languages and thats excluding english.
i'm from wales and not a 'fluent' welsh speaker and my choices in school were welsh or french!
not much of a choice eh?
2006-11-27 06:32:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree the british are terrible for learning languages we just have the lazy attitude that everyone understands english so why bother!
2006-11-28 00:43:02 · answer #9 · answered by Arlette 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I do agree.
Very important point.
2006-11-27 06:27:34 · answer #10 · answered by emeraldisle2222 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋