OT – Bilingual Education

[Anonymous]

Again, why is being English centric a detriment? Like it or not English is the most important language in the world and is the only language necessary to be live and do business in the U.S. If Americans want to learn other languages that is great, but it is nothing but a hobby or intellectual pursuit for most.

[afx114]

The human brain is wired to learn language at a very early age. It is a shame we wait until grade school to consider teaching a second language. By that time the ship has (mostly) already sailed.

Babies are born with an ‘excess’ of language synapses. These synapses either strengthen or die out based on the language(s) a child is immersed in. For example, it is well known that the Japanese language can not distinguish between ‘L’ and ‘R,’ but did you know that all babies no matter where they are born can distinguish these and other sounds? They can distinguish ALL sounds of all languages humans speak. It is not until they are brought up in a specific language that their native language processing synapses strengthen at the expense of their non-native language processing synapses being atrophied. And once these non-native synapses are gone, they are difficult to get back. It makes sense — why spend resources building/maintaining nerve connections that won’t be used? This is why it becomes increasingly difficult to learn new languages the older we get.

Language is a purely social experience. Studies show that a child “taught” language by television may not learn anything at all, while a child surrounded by humans speaking will learn it surprisingly quickly. There is something inherently social about language that TVs simply cannot reproduce. Interaction with another human being is required for us to learn language. Sorry, baby Einstein just ain’t gonna cut it.

The Charlie Rose show had a spectacular series on the human brain. Check out The Developing Brain episode for a discussion of language and language acquisition by children. Check out the entire series, it’s fascinating.

[afx114]

The human brain is wired to learn language at a very early age. It is a shame we wait until grade school to consider teaching a second language. By that time the ship has (mostly) already sailed.

Babies are born with an ‘excess’ of language synapses. These synapses either strengthen or die out based on the language(s) a child is immersed in. For example, it is well known that the Japanese language can not distinguish between ‘L’ and ‘R,’ but did you know that all babies no matter where they are born can distinguish these and other sounds? They can distinguish ALL sounds of all languages humans speak. It is not until they are brought up in a specific language that their native language processing synapses strengthen at the expense of their non-native language processing synapses being atrophied. And once these non-native synapses are gone, they are difficult to get back. It makes sense — why spend resources building/maintaining nerve connections that won’t be used? This is why it becomes increasingly difficult to learn new languages the older we get.

Language is a purely social experience. Studies show that a child “taught” language by television may not learn anything at all, while a child surrounded by humans speaking will learn it surprisingly quickly. There is something inherently social about language that TVs simply cannot reproduce. Interaction with another human being is required for us to learn language. Sorry, baby Einstein just ain’t gonna cut it.

The Charlie Rose show had a spectacular series on the human brain. Check out The Developing Brain episode for a discussion of language and language acquisition by children. Check out the entire series, it’s fascinating.

[afx114]

The human brain is wired to learn language at a very early age. It is a shame we wait until grade school to consider teaching a second language. By that time the ship has (mostly) already sailed.

Babies are born with an ‘excess’ of language synapses. These synapses either strengthen or die out based on the language(s) a child is immersed in. For example, it is well known that the Japanese language can not distinguish between ‘L’ and ‘R,’ but did you know that all babies no matter where they are born can distinguish these and other sounds? They can distinguish ALL sounds of all languages humans speak. It is not until they are brought up in a specific language that their native language processing synapses strengthen at the expense of their non-native language processing synapses being atrophied. And once these non-native synapses are gone, they are difficult to get back. It makes sense — why spend resources building/maintaining nerve connections that won’t be used? This is why it becomes increasingly difficult to learn new languages the older we get.

Language is a purely social experience. Studies show that a child “taught” language by television may not learn anything at all, while a child surrounded by humans speaking will learn it surprisingly quickly. There is something inherently social about language that TVs simply cannot reproduce. Interaction with another human being is required for us to learn language. Sorry, baby Einstein just ain’t gonna cut it.

The Charlie Rose show had a spectacular series on the human brain. Check out The Developing Brain episode for a discussion of language and language acquisition by children. Check out the entire series, it’s fascinating.

[afx114]

The human brain is wired to learn language at a very early age. It is a shame we wait until grade school to consider teaching a second language. By that time the ship has (mostly) already sailed.

Babies are born with an ‘excess’ of language synapses. These synapses either strengthen or die out based on the language(s) a child is immersed in. For example, it is well known that the Japanese language can not distinguish between ‘L’ and ‘R,’ but did you know that all babies no matter where they are born can distinguish these and other sounds? They can distinguish ALL sounds of all languages humans speak. It is not until they are brought up in a specific language that their native language processing synapses strengthen at the expense of their non-native language processing synapses being atrophied. And once these non-native synapses are gone, they are difficult to get back. It makes sense — why spend resources building/maintaining nerve connections that won’t be used? This is why it becomes increasingly difficult to learn new languages the older we get.

Language is a purely social experience. Studies show that a child “taught” language by television may not learn anything at all, while a child surrounded by humans speaking will learn it surprisingly quickly. There is something inherently social about language that TVs simply cannot reproduce. Interaction with another human being is required for us to learn language. Sorry, baby Einstein just ain’t gonna cut it.

The Charlie Rose show had a spectacular series on the human brain. Check out The Developing Brain episode for a discussion of language and language acquisition by children. Check out the entire series, it’s fascinating.

[afx114]

The human brain is wired to learn language at a very early age. It is a shame we wait until grade school to consider teaching a second language. By that time the ship has (mostly) already sailed.

Babies are born with an ‘excess’ of language synapses. These synapses either strengthen or die out based on the language(s) a child is immersed in. For example, it is well known that the Japanese language can not distinguish between ‘L’ and ‘R,’ but did you know that all babies no matter where they are born can distinguish these and other sounds? They can distinguish ALL sounds of all languages humans speak. It is not until they are brought up in a specific language that their native language processing synapses strengthen at the expense of their non-native language processing synapses being atrophied. And once these non-native synapses are gone, they are difficult to get back. It makes sense — why spend resources building/maintaining nerve connections that won’t be used? This is why it becomes increasingly difficult to learn new languages the older we get.

Language is a purely social experience. Studies show that a child “taught” language by television may not learn anything at all, while a child surrounded by humans speaking will learn it surprisingly quickly. There is something inherently social about language that TVs simply cannot reproduce. Interaction with another human being is required for us to learn language. Sorry, baby Einstein just ain’t gonna cut it.

The Charlie Rose show had a spectacular series on the human brain. Check out The Developing Brain episode for a discussion of language and language acquisition by children. Check out the entire series, it’s fascinating.

[davelj]

[quote=outtamojo]I agree w/ everything you said CAR-with this to add: teaching non-english speakers in their native language in the early grades hurts them to no end. I grew up in non english speaking househld and went to grade school w/ a lot of others like me. When those others did not do well in class, guess where they were sent, straight to the bilingual class. Did their school work improve? No!
What happened to a lot of those was they got to speak their native tongue all the time and as we got older(high school) they were the kids who never assimilated, the ones who never had any friends that were not of the same race as them. If I had my way, any kinder kid who did not know english would be prescribed 5 hours of Sponge Bob everyday until they became fluent.[/quote]

This is an extremely complicated topic and one that I also have direct experience with. And I don’t have any answers, only observations.

There are two primary schools of thought. The first says that you want to teach (immigrant) kids the fundamentals of language in their mother tongue and then move them over the English as they establish the basic rules of language. Down in Chula Vista, for example, the bilingual programs try to start out the kids with 90% Spanish/10% English in 1st grade and then slowly add more English so that by 5th grade it’s about 50/50 and by the end of middle school it’s 90% English. I can see the logic behind this – that is, it looks good on paper – but I think it’s difficult to get the English to where it needs to be when both parents are speaking Spanish at home, which is the case more often than not. But if the kid starts into this system in 1st or 2nd grade, it probably works out alright. But if you join later in elementary school, you’ve probably got a long-term problem.

The second school of thought is immersion. Throw them into the deep end with English and after a couple of years of real struggle they pick it up and it’s off to the races. From what I can gather from people I know that are my age and moved here from Mexico as kids (30+ years ago), this is what happened with them. And they were glad for it. Most of these folks think the bilingual programs do more harm than good because they enable the kids to hang onto their Spanish. But these folks are also from households that basically stopped speaking Spanish in the home once they moved to California. A friend of mine who moved from Mexico when he was 7 said his parents insisted the whole family speak in English when they moved to California, despite the fact that their English wasn’t very good. But they learned quickly.

Anyhow, my point is that each school of thought has its proponents. I don’t know which one is better and I suspect it depends on the circumstances.

[davelj]

[quote=outtamojo]I agree w/ everything you said CAR-with this to add: teaching non-english speakers in their native language in the early grades hurts them to no end. I grew up in non english speaking househld and went to grade school w/ a lot of others like me. When those others did not do well in class, guess where they were sent, straight to the bilingual class. Did their school work improve? No!
What happened to a lot of those was they got to speak their native tongue all the time and as we got older(high school) they were the kids who never assimilated, the ones who never had any friends that were not of the same race as them. If I had my way, any kinder kid who did not know english would be prescribed 5 hours of Sponge Bob everyday until they became fluent.[/quote]

This is an extremely complicated topic and one that I also have direct experience with. And I don’t have any answers, only observations.

There are two primary schools of thought. The first says that you want to teach (immigrant) kids the fundamentals of language in their mother tongue and then move them over the English as they establish the basic rules of language. Down in Chula Vista, for example, the bilingual programs try to start out the kids with 90% Spanish/10% English in 1st grade and then slowly add more English so that by 5th grade it’s about 50/50 and by the end of middle school it’s 90% English. I can see the logic behind this – that is, it looks good on paper – but I think it’s difficult to get the English to where it needs to be when both parents are speaking Spanish at home, which is the case more often than not. But if the kid starts into this system in 1st or 2nd grade, it probably works out alright. But if you join later in elementary school, you’ve probably got a long-term problem.

The second school of thought is immersion. Throw them into the deep end with English and after a couple of years of real struggle they pick it up and it’s off to the races. From what I can gather from people I know that are my age and moved here from Mexico as kids (30+ years ago), this is what happened with them. And they were glad for it. Most of these folks think the bilingual programs do more harm than good because they enable the kids to hang onto their Spanish. But these folks are also from households that basically stopped speaking Spanish in the home once they moved to California. A friend of mine who moved from Mexico when he was 7 said his parents insisted the whole family speak in English when they moved to California, despite the fact that their English wasn’t very good. But they learned quickly.

Anyhow, my point is that each school of thought has its proponents. I don’t know which one is better and I suspect it depends on the circumstances.

[davelj]

[quote=outtamojo]I agree w/ everything you said CAR-with this to add: teaching non-english speakers in their native language in the early grades hurts them to no end. I grew up in non english speaking househld and went to grade school w/ a lot of others like me. When those others did not do well in class, guess where they were sent, straight to the bilingual class. Did their school work improve? No!
What happened to a lot of those was they got to speak their native tongue all the time and as we got older(high school) they were the kids who never assimilated, the ones who never had any friends that were not of the same race as them. If I had my way, any kinder kid who did not know english would be prescribed 5 hours of Sponge Bob everyday until they became fluent.[/quote]

This is an extremely complicated topic and one that I also have direct experience with. And I don’t have any answers, only observations.

There are two primary schools of thought. The first says that you want to teach (immigrant) kids the fundamentals of language in their mother tongue and then move them over the English as they establish the basic rules of language. Down in Chula Vista, for example, the bilingual programs try to start out the kids with 90% Spanish/10% English in 1st grade and then slowly add more English so that by 5th grade it’s about 50/50 and by the end of middle school it’s 90% English. I can see the logic behind this – that is, it looks good on paper – but I think it’s difficult to get the English to where it needs to be when both parents are speaking Spanish at home, which is the case more often than not. But if the kid starts into this system in 1st or 2nd grade, it probably works out alright. But if you join later in elementary school, you’ve probably got a long-term problem.

The second school of thought is immersion. Throw them into the deep end with English and after a couple of years of real struggle they pick it up and it’s off to the races. From what I can gather from people I know that are my age and moved here from Mexico as kids (30+ years ago), this is what happened with them. And they were glad for it. Most of these folks think the bilingual programs do more harm than good because they enable the kids to hang onto their Spanish. But these folks are also from households that basically stopped speaking Spanish in the home once they moved to California. A friend of mine who moved from Mexico when he was 7 said his parents insisted the whole family speak in English when they moved to California, despite the fact that their English wasn’t very good. But they learned quickly.

Anyhow, my point is that each school of thought has its proponents. I don’t know which one is better and I suspect it depends on the circumstances.

[davelj]

[quote=outtamojo]I agree w/ everything you said CAR-with this to add: teaching non-english speakers in their native language in the early grades hurts them to no end. I grew up in non english speaking househld and went to grade school w/ a lot of others like me. When those others did not do well in class, guess where they were sent, straight to the bilingual class. Did their school work improve? No!
What happened to a lot of those was they got to speak their native tongue all the time and as we got older(high school) they were the kids who never assimilated, the ones who never had any friends that were not of the same race as them. If I had my way, any kinder kid who did not know english would be prescribed 5 hours of Sponge Bob everyday until they became fluent.[/quote]

This is an extremely complicated topic and one that I also have direct experience with. And I don’t have any answers, only observations.

There are two primary schools of thought. The first says that you want to teach (immigrant) kids the fundamentals of language in their mother tongue and then move them over the English as they establish the basic rules of language. Down in Chula Vista, for example, the bilingual programs try to start out the kids with 90% Spanish/10% English in 1st grade and then slowly add more English so that by 5th grade it’s about 50/50 and by the end of middle school it’s 90% English. I can see the logic behind this – that is, it looks good on paper – but I think it’s difficult to get the English to where it needs to be when both parents are speaking Spanish at home, which is the case more often than not. But if the kid starts into this system in 1st or 2nd grade, it probably works out alright. But if you join later in elementary school, you’ve probably got a long-term problem.

The second school of thought is immersion. Throw them into the deep end with English and after a couple of years of real struggle they pick it up and it’s off to the races. From what I can gather from people I know that are my age and moved here from Mexico as kids (30+ years ago), this is what happened with them. And they were glad for it. Most of these folks think the bilingual programs do more harm than good because they enable the kids to hang onto their Spanish. But these folks are also from households that basically stopped speaking Spanish in the home once they moved to California. A friend of mine who moved from Mexico when he was 7 said his parents insisted the whole family speak in English when they moved to California, despite the fact that their English wasn’t very good. But they learned quickly.

Anyhow, my point is that each school of thought has its proponents. I don’t know which one is better and I suspect it depends on the circumstances.

[davelj]

[quote=outtamojo]I agree w/ everything you said CAR-with this to add: teaching non-english speakers in their native language in the early grades hurts them to no end. I grew up in non english speaking househld and went to grade school w/ a lot of others like me. When those others did not do well in class, guess where they were sent, straight to the bilingual class. Did their school work improve? No!
What happened to a lot of those was they got to speak their native tongue all the time and as we got older(high school) they were the kids who never assimilated, the ones who never had any friends that were not of the same race as them. If I had my way, any kinder kid who did not know english would be prescribed 5 hours of Sponge Bob everyday until they became fluent.[/quote]

This is an extremely complicated topic and one that I also have direct experience with. And I don’t have any answers, only observations.

There are two primary schools of thought. The first says that you want to teach (immigrant) kids the fundamentals of language in their mother tongue and then move them over the English as they establish the basic rules of language. Down in Chula Vista, for example, the bilingual programs try to start out the kids with 90% Spanish/10% English in 1st grade and then slowly add more English so that by 5th grade it’s about 50/50 and by the end of middle school it’s 90% English. I can see the logic behind this – that is, it looks good on paper – but I think it’s difficult to get the English to where it needs to be when both parents are speaking Spanish at home, which is the case more often than not. But if the kid starts into this system in 1st or 2nd grade, it probably works out alright. But if you join later in elementary school, you’ve probably got a long-term problem.

The second school of thought is immersion. Throw them into the deep end with English and after a couple of years of real struggle they pick it up and it’s off to the races. From what I can gather from people I know that are my age and moved here from Mexico as kids (30+ years ago), this is what happened with them. And they were glad for it. Most of these folks think the bilingual programs do more harm than good because they enable the kids to hang onto their Spanish. But these folks are also from households that basically stopped speaking Spanish in the home once they moved to California. A friend of mine who moved from Mexico when he was 7 said his parents insisted the whole family speak in English when they moved to California, despite the fact that their English wasn’t very good. But they learned quickly.

Anyhow, my point is that each school of thought has its proponents. I don’t know which one is better and I suspect it depends on the circumstances.

[GH]

I assume “Spanish” is what is being pushed for. More useful though in the business world, I would prefer to see Chinese taught, or perhaps French or German.

[GH]

I assume “Spanish” is what is being pushed for. More useful though in the business world, I would prefer to see Chinese taught, or perhaps French or German.

[GH]

I assume “Spanish” is what is being pushed for. More useful though in the business world, I would prefer to see Chinese taught, or perhaps French or German.

[GH]

I assume “Spanish” is what is being pushed for. More useful though in the business world, I would prefer to see Chinese taught, or perhaps French or German.

[Author]

Posts