Why Foreign Language Education Matters
Imagine a storeroom full of hundreds of hours of audio recordings and documents in Farsi, Pashto, Urdu, or Korean. The materials might hold the clues to prevent a future terrorist attack or help American intelligence officials finally locate Osama bin Laden, only a handful have been translated because a lack of trained linguists.
We have those storerooms now. We lack these translators now.
Such troves of untranslated materials exist, and in at least one case FBI officials admitted that they destroyed a storeroom of documents before they were even translated.
The problem is not only in the area of national defense. Our companies lose international contracts to competitors, our scientists miss important collaborations, international assistance organizations fail to understand local customs critical to advancing America's interests, and average Americans are deprived of a cultural enrichment in their lives.
Illinois Senator, Barack Obama, recently expressed concerns about our nation's foreign language deficit saying, "You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language."
Senator Obama's opponents seized upon his remarks, making the claims that he was trying to force Americans to learn a secondary language. Such criticism is not only foolish, it is dangerous.
Rather than attack Senator Obama, I would hope we could reach a political consensus in this country that our government must change course and stop undervaluing and under-investing in foreign language education. Leaders from both parties should recognize the issue's importance and bring forth strategies to increase our interest and our ability in foreign languages.
Some members of the public and media might question why, with our unparalleled military and economic might, would Americans need to learn the languages of the world. Doesn't everyone speak English anyway? It is no exaggeration to say that bolstering foreign language education for ensuing generations is vital to our nation's economic and national security.
Our national security is heavily dependent on translators, specialists, and interpreters within the intelligence community, the diplomatic corps, and the military. Prior to September 11, 2001 our intelligence community was at only 30 percent readiness in languages critical to national security. The government revealed after the 9/11 attacks that it had a 123,000-hour backlog of Arabic language recordings waiting to be analyzed. Five years after the attacks, news reports demonstrated that only 33 FBI agents had limited proficiency in Arabic, and "none of them work in the sections of the bureau that coordinate investigations of international terrorism."
Our ability to compete in the global marketplace -- one in which China and India continue to rise - is dependent on our knowledge of other languages and cultures. Already, China claims to be the second largest English-speaking nation in the world. As the non-partisan Committee for Economic Development wrote in a 2006 report, "Many small- and medium-sized businesses from New England to the Pacific Northwest are now finding it necessary to do business in the languages and cultural environments of the world's emerging markets." Still, the same report cited a study showing that 30 percent of large U.S. corporations believed they failed to exploit fully their international business opportunities due to insufficient personnel with international skills.
Recognizing the importance of foreign language understanding has not been -- nor should it be -- a liberal or Democratic viewpoint. In speeches, President Bush and Secretary of State Rice have shared the view that the U.S. should do more to support foreign language education.
In 2005, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page approvingly cited a report published by the Department of Defense that recommended "immediate...engagement by public, private and government agencies to improve the nation's foreign language and cultural competency." That same report noted that after September 11, 2001, Americans were "caught flat-footed, unprepared to confront Al Quada terrorists."
Language learning is a long-term process; unfortunately there is no short-cut to acquiring fluency in a foreign tongue. It takes hard work, individual commitment, and the proper institutional support. We must ensure that we increase the supply line of students who have strong language skills.
The 110th Congress has taken steps to confront this problem. We passed legislation, based on language I wrote, to create upfront tuition assistance for college students who commit to teaching critical foreign language at public schools. Over the last two budgets, we raised federal funding from $16 million to $44.7 million for the National Security Education Program, a language studies and cultural awareness training program for future federal employees.
We can still do more. We could establish grants for foreign language partnerships between local school districts and foreign language departments at institutions of higher education. We could create an Assistant Secretary for International and Foreign Language Education in the Department of Education, who would provide leadership in directing efforts aimed at international and foreign language education.
There are other approaches to strengthening America's foreign language education, and all of these should be discussed. Unfortunately, some would rather score cheap political points than have a serious discussion about an issue that directly affects our economy and national security.
Another Illinois Senator, the late Paul Simon, in his book, The Tongue-Tied American, once called the United States a "linguistically malnourished" nation. He said that almost 30 years ago. Our nation's appetite for learning a foreign language sadly still needs to be filled.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
FL methodology has shifted seismically since the 70s/80s. Most FL-courses today are taught using a communicative approach, -students are expected to use the target language from the get-go. Gone are the days of the rote-learning, translations & fill-in-the-blank grammar exercises. Obviously there are still teachers, who don't use the most effective methods, but I can tell you that all my colleagues & I teach our courses using the communicative method & not the methods of the 1970s. A superior language classroom will touch all modes of communication: speaking, reading, writing & listening. What stands in the way of effective learning is our naive idea achieving fluency is a simple task. Unfortunately, it's not, thus I advocate starting foreign languages in the elementary schools, preferably in 1st grade, at the latest in 3rd. Before we can do that though we must have enough capable teachers who can articulate these programs through high school. At this point, we at the university level are not able to take our students nearly as far as we used to in their 4 years at with us. This leads to more & more college programs being in danger of getting cut. I guarantee you that parents are interested in having their children learn foreign languages, it's just the school districts - bound by such genius government programs as "No Child Left Behind" - that do not support the creation of a comprehensive foreign language curriculum that stretches from grade school into high school.
English only in America. First, we need to change that name America to an English name.
We should remove all latin from government buildings and the currency.
The marines should stop saying semper phi. English only.
The words cafe, restaurant, etc need to be removed
No more sushi, tacos, tofu, lutafisk..
The states should be renamed to English names only, no more California, Colorado, Dakota, Illinois, etc.
LOL ... the French actually tried to do that back in the 90's ... didn't work out so well ....
Mussolini tried it in Italy. 'Bar'' became QUISIBEVE ('people drink here'), for example. Funny that it didn't get very far there either, but now they certainly do NOT do a very good job at teaching foreign languages to their children at all, and are currently waging war against native foreign language speakers as language teachers, regardless of their poor standing amongst European countries as far as foreign language competence goes (including English).
We need to overhaul the whole education system to fit the new world we live in. We are all in this together. All sides have to work together tweeking will not work.
"It is no exaggeration to say that bolstering foreign language education for ensuing generations is vital to our nation's economic and national security."
I would call it exaggeration. Learning foreign languages is important, but "vital for our national strength"? Isn't that laying it on a bit thick?
How many times, since 2001, have we heard polticians tell us that (place noun here) is absolutely vital to our national security?
I'm all for foreign-language education, starting even in elementary school, but let's face it, where will the money come from? Public education isn't exactly the priority of the Republicans, and it didn't fare tremendously better under Clinton.
There's always money for another war, or another bailout of Wall Street, but as for public education.
Well, we could start by diverting money TOWARD classroom budgets and AWAY from administra
But me, when I have kids, I'm going to homeschool them and get tutoring for areas I'm weak on. Working as a teacher has turned me firmly against institutional schooling of any sort. We're talking about a 19th-century invention designed to teach only enough to function as a servant, factory worker or soldier - but not enough to be free or do any real thinking.
See John Taylor Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education":
http://www
"teach only enough to function as a servant, factory worker or soldier - but not enough to be free or do any real thinking"
You touch on a pet peeve of mine. In my working class town, schools take over 60% of the budget. The town revune comes from property taxes primarily. Yet businesses whoses owners and key managers who do not live in the town complain about how the schools are not producing graduates with the skills necessary to do the jobs these businesses want done. Yet those businesses don't want to pay a dime towards education. Also they feel no responsibility to train there own employees. They want to run everything and pay for nothing. What a scam.
But if we educated our children that well, they'd learn to think for themselves, and then they might not vote Republican.
How can schools teach foreign languages, when the powers-that-be don't want to pay for public schools anymore? The schools don't even offer art, music, or PE in many cases. They can't afford a librarian. Some schools have no field trips.
It's not that there isn't enough money in this country; there is. The problem is that the upper class will no longer pay for quality public schools. Why should they? Their children go to expensive private schools nowadays. And now with our economy collapsing, the neocons will have even more excuses to cut public services.
As someone who has studied four languages other than English, and has worked with British English, I can say that I think a second language requirement starting in grade school is a good idea and should be mandatory. I fortunately went to a school system way back when that started French in the 3rd grade, and offered French, German, Spanish, and Latin in high school. I use my languages daily, for things as small as ordering Mexican food in a restaurant to traveling through France without a dictionary. Learning another language is freedom.
I've read articles like this one, about the fact that Americans sooooo badly need to learn foreign languages, and yet nothing has ever changed!
During the Cold War, some said this should be a national priority, yet it never happened. What's so different now?
Maybe the US military would have enough translators if they would stop kicking out the ones who are gay. Apparently the US military chooses prejudice over national security.
They only kicked out six that I heard of. We need to look to first generation Arabs and Iranians. Those of us are first generation Americans are p pretty loyal bunch. Just look at Obama.
Bob Woodward pointed out a couple years ago that we're still desperately short on Arabic translators because FBI and other gov't agencies won't hire them. "There is" he said, "an outright predjudice against people who natively speak Arabic, Farsi, etc ..."
As a German professor at a mid-sized American university, I can only underline, bold print and add a million exclamation points to what you've said. We are so pathetically undereducated in foreign languages in this country and we just don't even seem to care! Year after year well-established foreign language programs in high schools around this country die off as soon as a teacher retires. The guidance counselors at my own son's school tell parents of incoming freshmen that their children "should not" enroll in foreign language courses until they are juniors since they only "need" two years of a language to get into college! Do they not even consider the fact that learning a foreign language has other benefits besides making it easier to get into college? How about considering the fact that being bilingual actually enriches one's life!!! Or perhaps the fact that learning a foreign language helps one learn more about one's own language and way of thinking. How about considering the fact that learning a foreign language introduces one to a whole new culture and a whole new way of thinking!!! We don't even need to mention the fact that America actually valuing proficiency in foreign languages would make us look a little better to our neighbors throughout the world! In my view, we need a comprehensive plan to introduce foreign languages at the elementary level and articulate all the way through college, only then will we produce true multilingual citizens!
Yea, but what language?
Any one you please. Wherever your inclinations lie. it doesn't really matter which language you choose to learn; if you only know your native language, you don't even know THAT one.
Spanish comes to mind!. Realistically more of our citizens speak it and we have the greatest cultural connection to it bordering on Mexico and with close ties to Puerto Rico, Cuba and South American nations. We could start by introducing Spanish in elementary schools and then in by 6th or 7th grade offer an option of French, German, Japanese, Chinese, Russian...
On a volunteer-basis with two other mothers, I organized and led an extensive before/after school foreign language program at my son's elementary school. The parents paid $60 a semester and their children got two 1/2 hour lessons a week. We hired college students or trained teachers who weren't in full time positions at that moment at $25/hour.
You wouldn't believe the response we had! We taught: French, German, 2 levels of Spanish, Sign Language and Japanese. With roughly 500 kids at the school we routinely had 150 students enrolled. I led that program for 6 years. The program died when my son graduated, but the response proved that most parents support such a curriculum.
Esperanto should be taught in every elementary school in America and more complicated languages in high school.
The more "complicated" a language, the earlier children should start learning it. Small children have a nearly infinite capacity for learning language which is lost by the onset of puberty.
Foreign language courses as taught in most American schools is a waste of time. Literature and grammar are taught: not conversation. At best, a student after 5 years' study of Spanish might be able to translate Cervantes and Unamuno, but he can say barely more than Como esta.
You're right, and that's not how they do it in countries that are serious about second-language acquisition. Dutch kids start studying when they are small and continue through all their school years. At the very least, American children should be studying Spanish and Chinese from preschool.
There are different schools of thought on this, but as someone who studied a non-European language in school and then lived abroad for several years where that language is spoken, I was grateful for the academic training I had. Fluency seems to come more quickly once you are in an environment with native speakers if you have a good conceptual understanding of the language.
Although I support Obama, and will vote for him, he of course is hypocritical about this. He still supports firing Gay people from the military until the homophobes there give him "permission" to change the policy. The "Generals" were much more interested in getting rid of Gay people than having Arabic interpretters. Let Obama rehire the fired [gay] Arabic interprettors with an apology, then I will consider whether or not he is serious.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
