Countries have already begun establishing foreign language requirements for their elementary school children. In the United States, however, only 24 percent of public elementary schools teach a foreign language, according to a U.S. Department of Education press release last year. Out of those U.S. elementary schools, only 21 percent attempt to get proficiency rather than "introductory exposure." Even at the high school level, the Digest of Education Statistics says that only 44 percent of students are taking foreign language courses. As the world becomes more interconnected and different cultures come into contact with one another, knowing more than one language becomes imperative. Careers within the areas of science, business, and technology, are prime examples of this globalization. To be competitive in the global arena, these numbers need to change, and the best way to do that is to require our own elementary schools to teach foreign languages.
There has been much research to prove that it is easier for young children to learn languages. The Language Workshop for Children (LWFC), a program dedicated to teaching children multiple languages, says on their Web site that from the ages of about seven months to 12 years, "children have their greatest potential to absorb and retain language skills," and schools can take advantage of that time frame. The LWFC also explains that if children learn a language during that time period, they will speak it "like a native," that is, without an accent. After about age 13, "newly learned words are channeled to a completely different place" in the brain. This means that any new words learned after that age are pronounced differently.
Children also have "emotional advantages" over adults. Adults tend to be self-conscious about getting a word wrong or saying it strangely. Children don't have those same inhibitions, and will try out new words without worrying as much about right or wrong. This makes them learn the language and become fluent much faster, another benefit the LWFC stresses.
Beyond being easier at that age, learning a foreign language gives young children many specific benefits. USA Today reported last month that children do better in school and on standardized tests, develop better problem-solving skills, and are more accepting of diversity and different cultures. The LWFC points out that English words are often derived from other languages, and so learning those languages can actually help a child understand her own language.
Even without these extra benefits, teaching languages at a young age is vastly more efficient than the current foreign language system. Many high school students take a foreign language to theoretically get ahead in college credits, or because the college requires it. Because they take the courses after the prime learning time, they do not absorb the language very well. Older students will always have an accent, but that's not the main consequence of not absorbing the language well enough. Students take placement tests (either through the school or a standardized test like an SAT II) and either place out or don't. If students place out and do nothing else with the language, they will inevitably forget it, and they will never be proficient like they should be or like a placement test said they were. If a student does not do well enough to place out, they just have to take the same courses again in college or attempt a new language, which will also be forgotten after a few years. So we end up with a lot of citizens who are proficient according to a test or a transcript, but do not actually fully know any language. Our society wastes a lot of money and time just to get a piece of paper claiming proficiency.
Granted, there are opportunities for older students to become and stay fluent, but it takes a lot more work than if they learned a language at a young age. Students can take more classes than required or they can study abroad and live in a country where their chosen language is spoken. It is still proven, though, that they will not be able to speak without some form of an accent, and a lot more work will have to go into staying fluent. It simply makes more sense to teach a language when the brain is most receptive.
Regulating education in this country is restricted to states. But money for these programs can come from any level of government. States need to recognize the benefits of teaching languages and hopefully will be able to implement their own programs in public elementary schools. The U.S. Department of Education has already devoted money toward this cause, but, as the numbers show, not enough students are learning at this young and critical age.
Ashlee Wilkins is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer. She is a first-year in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 8 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
