Should students have to learn at least 1 foreign language?
Yep
Side Score: 44
|
 |
Nope
Side Score: 29
|
|
|
|
|
6
points
I see that President Obama wants everyone to learn another language, however which one should it be? The British learn French, the Australians study Japanese, and the Americans prefer Spanish. Yet this leaves Russian, Mandarin Chinese and Arabic, out of the equation. It is time to move forward and discuss the subject of a common, non-neutral international language, taught worldwide, in all schools and in all nations. I would personally prefer Esperanto. If you have a moment have a look at http://video.google.com/ Choose the global language, Esperanto
Side: Yep
1
point
1
point
Since most of the World's citizens do need to learn more than one lanuage, it is helpful for our children to understand what that entails. Teaching them Esperanto as a part of their general primary-school education gives them the experience of gaining a functional second language, along with stimulus and opportunity to make contact with children in the widest variety of other countries. It also prepares them to make best use of the limited supply of other language teachers in high school if they choose to learn more. See how this can be done at www.mondeto.com Side: Yep
1
point
4
points
Actually, it should be two for non-English speakers. English, as difficult as it is to learn, is the closest thing we have right now for an international language. The other should be a logical, phonetic, regular, and neutral language, such as the one that Brian is recommending. More info at www.esperanto-usa.org and www.lernu.net Side: Yep
1
point
1
point
3
points
At least one. Learning the logical "foreign" language will undoubtedly lead to a better knowledge of the own language and is a good help to learn other languages and "logical" subjects such as mathematics and sciences. So Esperanto is the first foreign language to learn. And it is not so "foreign". Most of its lexical elements are immediately understood and its grammar is logical, simple and without exceptions. Therefore, learning it is not discouraging for the children. Side: Yep
1
point
Definitely. Something akin to what the Australians and British are doing... teaching Esperanto in grade school. I think that we should teach them in grade school and then again in junior high or high school, and then require at least one other language for graduation. The problem with this is, of course, finding enough teachers to teach the languages that people want to learn. I really want to learn Russian in my area and I cannot find a teacher. Perhaps we may have to embrace non-traditional methods of teaching languages that are not available to our students. More info about Esperanto on my BLog: http://www.ArionsHome.com/esperanto Side: Yep
1
point
1
point
Yes they should and I would even go so far as to say 2 other languages. We start the kids off so early today there's time for 2 and not just one. As soon as languages become available to you begin taking them. It takes years to build fairly acceptable conversation skills so use them wisely! Side: Yep
1
point
1
point
0
points
1
point
1
point
Yes, of course, students must learn a foreign language (those of Great Britain, the USA, such as those in Europe) But the language the easiest, fastest and most fun to learn is Esperanto. Having learned Esperanto, students will then be able to join the young people of all countries to learn all languages. Side: Yep
1
point
Nowadays, obviously, every student needs to master a foreign language, and they can only do this by learning and having a passion for learning it. But the thing is that each student has their own passion in a particular language. So in order to explore in which language they are interested, they have to study more than 1 foreign language. And only by this can they find out and improve their passion as well as their talents in that foreign language. Side: Yep
1
point
|
Nobody should be forced to learn something he or she doesn't want to learn. That being said, I do think the study of foreign languages should be heavily advised to shrink the world and allow the student an upper edge against others who did not take the advice and only learned their native tongue. Side: NOPE
Actually, there is more and more evidence that quite the opposite is true. Children are naturally curious and want to learn things; it's when they're forced to learn specific things in specific ways that their thirst for knowledge is hindered. Isn't it commonly observed that children ask too many questions (to the point of annoyance in some cases), unless stopped? "Why is the sky blue?" "Why is the grass green?" "Where do babies come from?" "What's a stork, and where do stork babies come from then?" etc...
If you're interested, look up "unschooling" and "child-centered learning." There are also several great books out there on this subject. Not all children are the same, and so trying to force children to learn the same things, in the same ways, at the same pace, is insane. You cannot force a student to be interested in a subject. You cannot force an interest in anyone. Nobody should be coerced against. Especially children. Side: NOPE
it's a toughy. Foreign language is useless to me and people like me, but so can 4 years of English. education is pretty subjective. But, History is important because it sucks when you have a debate with someone who doesn't know shit about history. this is how ignorant asswipes on TV are born (like Jon Stewart). Science is important because then you get dumbasses who don't know shit about basic chemistry or biology or people who actually doubt at least the basics of evolution. Basic english is necessary. i fuckin' hate it when people talk the dumbest shit... i mean, shit that makes you think "wtf". but some of the advanced shit is just completely unnecessary. foreign language? 2 years in highschool isn't enough to learn shit... so it's basically useless. idk, so many kids took all the way to AP spanish... and then took that shit in college. Side: NOPE
Most kids who take a foreign language in school don't actually learn the language. You can put a student in a class but you can't make them learn the subject. You can threaten them so that they do the work, but learning is more important. I do not think it should be mandatory. The more options students have in high school, the better, because that is when they have to start thinking about their career path. If a student wants a career that has nothing to do with ever needing to know a foreign language, why should they take the class in high school? Side: NOPE
Well we can use that logic in the case of where some people think that math is totally useless. Well what if you are in a situation where knowing a few words of Spanish could save someone's life? You never know when you need a language, you just never do. woot small victory 1200 posts =] Side: Yep
1
point
1
point
|
