High School Foreign Language Education: A Politically Correct Waste?

posted by Curt, on February 24, 2008 08:20 pm

I have been thinking about writing this post for a while now. The idea developed primarily as a result of a conversation that I had with my wife about Americans' general ignorance about the world around them. My wife was raised in Canada and during our conversation I explained to her my belief that Americans' ignorance of other places is just as much a product of cultural attitude as a failing school system. It is an historical relic of an isolationist history that seems absolutely astonishing given how much influence America exerts in a world that the majority of its citizens don't know or particularly care about.

But, this is not the main focus of this posting. As part of this conversation I expressed my belief that foreign language education in high school is an absolute waste of time and resources that could be better spent in geographic education. While I'm sure there are those who have gotten a great deal out of their high school Spanish class, I have never known one. I myself took three years of high school Japanese, and cannot remember any more than my father taught me on his own (and I knew prior to beginning the class). Now, this failure may not be unique to foreign languages. I strikes me as entirely probable that most people can say the same for their high school trig or algebra classes, and probably most social studies as well. However, even though ineffectiveness in outcomes is not necessarily a reason to abandon attempts at education in a particular subject (otherwise we'd pretty much abandon most, if not all, of the current high school curriculum), I am still convinced that foreign language education, at least in high school, is close to useless and should be abandoned. Let me set out my reasons and invite responses

Again, since I refuse to use ineffectiveness in teaching/learning as my criteria for which courses of study should be offered/discontinued, I'll begin by looking at purposes. What is it that schools are attempting to accomplish with foreign language education? At a broad level, we are told that it is necessary to prepare our students for a culturally integrated society and economically integrated world. In other words, society and the students themselves will be benefited by a student's ability to speak with others of different backgrounds in their own language. It seems obvious to me that high school foreign language courses have failed in successfully teaching the ability to communicate in another language. But, perhaps they have not entirely failed in preparing students to interact with others who speak different languages. In that sense, they may be somewhat effective in what we are told is the broader goal of such programs: preparing students to interact in an integrated society and world.

A second possible purpose of high school foreign language programs might be to serve as a introductory course that introduces students to various languages and stimulates interest in those who might want to pursue those courses in college. In all actuality, this is probably the purpose (at least in the current public educational system) of many high school courses. It certainly seems that high school courses serve this function for a number of people.

I think these are legitimate and even important purposes. Even assuming that high school foreign language programs serve these purposes, however, there are, I believe, more effective ways. Geographic education, which is largely ignored in today's America, would introduce people to cultures and places in a way that creates interest (at least in some) in future interaction and learning. It also has the benefit of exposing students to a larger array of places and cultures than does a single foreign language course. Geographic education also need not be limited to language education (which, in order to be effectively done, requires a level of concentration and classroom focus that simply cannot be found in an average high school classroom), but can be broader, encompassing other aspects of environmental, ethnic, cultural, and state relations as well. This broadness would, I think, stimulate more interest in a broader number of people than would a course targeted solely at language (and the necessary culture that accompanies it). While there is undoubtedly some overlap with the current "social studies" program, I envision geographic education as being much more place-focused; perhaps involving a mandatory course on American geography (discussing cultural, ethnic, and physical spatial patterns) as well as an elective regional course.

Admittedly, my views about what an effective geographic education would be are ill-defined at this point. But I am pretty sure that foreign language education is ineffective at accomplishing any of the purposes it could be plausibly be directed at and that geographic education would be more effective at, not only accomplishing those goals, but also at mitigating the average American's astounding ignorance about the world in which his country has become so involved.

And finally, let me offer my thought on why high school foreign language education--despite its obvious ineffectiveness--is praised, championed, and even accelerated. I think that there are two reasons. First, it's politically correct in today's America to be internationalist and inclusive; and second, foreign language education is viewed as an avenue for not only teaching cultural awareness but also teaching a practical skill (the ability to speak another language). In that sense, I think its champions view it as being able to accomplish the same goals as social studies/geographic education but with the added benefit of practicality. My own life experience (and that of those I know) refutes that idea, but anyone who has had a contrary experience, please let me know.

Add New Comment

Your Name:
Your Comment:

Security Code: