First, teach basics; then teach Spanish
The following is a Counterpoint:
By Don Miller
Regarding the responses to my Counterpoint on the relative importance of Spanish ("Don't waste school time on Spanish," Sept. 26):
One writer indicated that knowledge of Spanish would be of benefit in selling cars or working in a call center. I suspect that most parents of elementary school kids have somewhat higher professional aspirations for them. Another writer informs that she would not be able to operate her business in Bolivia without a knowledge of Spanish. Duh! Bolivia is a Spanish-speaking country! Since Uzbek, say, is essential to running a business in Uzbekistan, should all U.S. kids be placed in Uzbek-intensive courses?
Of course Spanish has value, as do all languages, in certain unique circumstances. But is it the most valuable language for our children to learn?
On average, American children score lower on international tests than most other children in first world nations. We have one of the shortest school years; our teachers are encumbered by bureaucratic and disciplinary burdens unknown to other societies; what little time our kids are in school is diverted from academics by things like "self-esteem," "sex education," "diversity," etc., with the result, as the News & Record recently noted, that high school graduates are not even prepared to succeed in the gentle, nurturing environment at N.C. A&T! And you want to impose foreign languages on top of all this mediocrity? Something else for them not to learn?
I'll make a deal: You pressure all the school boards to lengthen the school day and school year. Let the teachers teach, bring our kids up to where they should be in the academic basics and then I will support 100 percent the teaching of a choice of foreign languages.
My critics, all obviously expert linguists, have stated or implied that I am unqualified to speak on this subject. Perhaps so, but I do indeed speak fluent Spanish, having lived and worked for more than 10 years in four Latin American countries, most recently three years in Mexico and four years in El Salvador. I also speak fluent Greek. I function pretty well in German, and I have managed to achieve fluency in French. I am a retired Army officer and former U.S. consular officer, have a master's in international relations and have done doctoral work in Latin American history. Admittedly meager qualifications.
Obviously, for my critics Spanish has become a matter of political correctness and is not to be questioned. They must understand, however, that as an American I have a right to prefer, for whatever reasons, the study of language "A" in preference to languages "B" or "C" and, furthermore, that I have the right to express that opinion publicly without having my character and motives impugned.
The writer lives in Greensboro.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Strong defense by Don Millier, but I'll challenge one of his recommendations:
"...You pressure all the school boards to lengthen the school day and school year . . . then I will support 100 percent the teaching of a choice of foreign languages."
Forcing children still MORE seat time in a unresponsive, rigid schooling structure will yield little of value. It's akin to the popular solution for the drop-out problem: raise the compulsory attendance age to 18.
Instead consider:
"Nobody would want the government to run 90 percent of the nation's entertainment industry. Nobody thinks that 90 percent of all housing should be owned by the state. Yet the government's control of 90 percent of the nation's schools leaves most Americans strangely unconcerned." – Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby. (October 17 Boston Globe)
Thought experiment: Suppose ninety percent of our automobiles were "made by the government."
Is there a reason to think that education that is 90 per cent "made by the government" should be any better than the pathetic vehicles a government monpoly in car manufacturing would produce?
The problem of what level of Spanish instruction should be provided to children would sort itself out in a free market school system. And the endless spats over what should be happening in the local government-run schools, a faint memory.
Posted on October 31, 2007 7:01 AM
Tom said: "Nobody would want the government to run 90 percent of the nation's entertainment industry. Nobody thinks that 90 percent of all housing should be owned by the state. Yet the government's control of 90 percent of the nation's schools leaves most Americans strangely unconcerned." – Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby. (October 17 Boston Globe)
Hell, I don't even like the "Guvmint" running 90% of the "guvmint"
Posted on October 31, 2007 9:56 AM
"I have the right to express that opinion publicly without having my character and motives impugned."
Nonsense. There's no such "right" in the Constitution.
I agree with the original letter that the real-life value of speaking a foreign language is vastly overblown. English-only speakers do just fine, Knowing a foreign language is about like knowing a computer language: necessary for some jobs, occasionally useful, but hardly necessary for most of us. And yes, this is one of those subjects about which Americans tend to self-flagellate. ("It's so awful! Belgians can speak three languages and we can speak only one! The horror. The horror.")
But the cognitive value of learning another language has been, IMO, amply demonstrated, and foreign language instruction is about the only place anyone learns about grammar anymore.
Moreover, the zero-sum premise of the letter--that if students weren't learning Spanish, they'd be learning English, math, etc.--is debatable. It's not primarily a lack of time that produces low levels of learning.
Posted on October 31, 2007 11:47 AM
This is getting ridiculous. Counterpoint to the counterpoint to the counterpoint to the counterpoint.......
Can't we just throw these folks in a ring and let them have at it.
It's like reading the responses of Neocon and TLC on a letter about gay, flag-burning, abortion doctors protesting in Iraq.
Posted on October 31, 2007 12:18 PM
Brian,
Not to be picky... but:
He does have such a right, and it IS in the US Constitution. See the First Amendment.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
Posted on October 31, 2007 12:37 PM
Nope. He's been attacked, but nothing that borders on legal slander. If you want to argue in public, be ready to have your character and motives impugned. It's the American way.
Posted on October 31, 2007 1:12 PM
Tom said:
"I have the right to express that opinion publicly without having my character and motives impugned."
Now let's break this down:
Tom used the word: impugn. Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines this word as: a verb, to attack as false or wrong. This is basically a synonym for attack.
Looking at that same source for the legal definition of defame:
Defame: verb (used with object), to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate.
And since reputation is a synonym for character, the logic should speak for itself.
Now let's review again. Tom said:
"I have the right to express that opinion publicly without having my character and motives impugned."
It is the very definition of defamation. The case of New York Times v Sullivan discusses this interpretation of the First Amendment in depth. The issue is not nearly as complicated as you're making it.
Posted on October 31, 2007 1:29 PM