The South Dakota Board of Education Standards meets tomorrow in Pierre for several dreary tasks, including conducting a public hearing on revising our high school graduation requirements. They’ve already received 96 comments from a generally grousy public. Among those comments are some brave defenders of world language education who say that South Dakota’s placement of foreign language (“world language” is the accepted professional term) classes and career/tech classes in the same graduation category is just silly.
Rapid City Spanish teacher Angela Giffin says that instead of allowing students to substitute tech courses for foreign language courses, we ought to require every student except those in special ed to take at least one year of foreign language to graduate. She gives us five points that pop up in some other public comments:
World language learning should be a 1 unit requirement for all graduates (except special education students). (It should be taught starting in elementary school). It is not comparable to CTE courses or internships. It utilizes a different part of the brain, and had different benefits and results.
- Second language is increasingly required to be accepted to college.
- More jobs prefer (and require) knowledge of a second language.
- Even in South Dakota, we are not isolated from the world at large, and its cultural and language diversity. Learning in high school will help prepare children better for their reality.
- Learning a language takes time. The younger they start, the better they’ll be.
- Learning a second language has a profound positive effect on brain development [Angela Giffin, public comment to DOE Board of Education Standards, 2018.06.20].
“Profound positive effect on brain development”—translation: learning foreign languages makes you smarter!
Some commenters note the oddity of creating a separate “Advanced Career Endorsment” that high school students can achieve only by taking two or more years of career/tech courses and toward which foreign language study does not count at all while creating an “Advanced Honors Endorsement” in which career/tech courses remain interchangeable with “Modern or Classical Language.” Sioux Falls French teacher January Johnson says the career and honors endorsements should be distinct:
…The proposed changes already have an endorsement for Career/CTE units, and adding it as an option for Advanced Honors is a duplication favoring CTE. It is possible, therefore, that students may be able to earn multiple endorsements via CTE courses. If your plan is to diversify student options, please revise the Advanced Honors Endorsement to include 2 years of modern/classical language study to distinguish it from other paths and endorsements… [January Johnson, public comment to SD Board of Education Standards, 2018.07.10].
In Academic Year 2015, 19.66% of high school students nationwide took foreign language courses. South Dakota came close to that percentage at 18.63%. But statewide, out of 86 high schools responding to a survey, only 66 offered Spanish, eight offered German, seven offered French, three offered American Sign Language, one offered Latin, and one offered Russian.
These comments likely won’t sway the Board of Education Standards, as South Dakota’s Legislature has a deeply ingrained antipathy toward teaching kids to talk like those durn furriners. But if South Dakota were to require foreign language for graduation, we’d need to hire a lot more foreign language teachers, which would require spending some more money, something else to which the South Dakota Legislature has a deeply ingrained antipathy.
The proposals are revivals of curricular requirements of the past. When I was in high school, two years of a foreign language were a standard requirement for college admission. I had two years of French. Many students had fulfilled the requirement with Latin, which was still commonly taught. The reason given was that the study of a foreign language provided students with a more definitive understanding of the function of grammar and showed them different dimensions of thought. Having an illiterate president has sparked an interest in that need.
My God! It’s unthinkable not to require foreign language for graduation. I have friends in Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Sweden who speak and write English better than friends in USA. They all know three languages. Isolationism is wrong. It’s a World culture and these tariffs prove that USA isn’t all that. We have nothing the world needs and desperately need to cultivate international friendships and partnerships. The half-educated people who elected Trump can’t be allowed to take us down to their level!! This means you, Old Sarge and Hickey.
Please remind us where to send our comments and what the deadline is.
Thanks.
Sorry, Cathy B—DOE appears to have closed public comments on July 12. Last chance is to go to Pierre and make comments at tomorrow’s hearing, starting at 9 a.m…. assuming tomorrow’s public hearing is open to comments from the floor. But those rules have to be approved by the interim rules review committee as well, which meets in August. So I’m guessing that if the rules that emerge tomorrow are unsatisfactory, one could catch some legislators and give them an earful.
Minors in a foreign language as part of the baccalaureate experience are a good thing to have. But if the goal is to get more students functionally literate in a foreign language, you’ll make more long-lasting progress if it is promoted as a desirement instead of a requirement.
Some universities do require a foreign language competency in order to graduate, but that is not uniform across higher education.
If taking a foreign language is a prerequisite for getting into most universities, then make it a requirement. Otherwise, I’d rather it not be a requirement except perhaps an introductory course that gives you a taste of multiple languages. It’s not that it isn’t valuable, but like advanced math classes it shouldn’t be a burdensome requirement to graduate. When people talk about the multiple languages people in other countries know, it ignores the fact they have opportunities to use that knowledge. If the surrounding states all spoke a different language (insert North Dakota joke here) then we’d know multiple languages too.
Six years of living in Europe convinced me. My late wife spoke nearly fluent French, I spoke passable Spanish, Italian and German, We were able to get by anywhere (except Scandinavia – where everyone spoke English).
Most Americans seem to think speaking a foreign language consists of speaking English louder!!
When the Crusades are complete, the entire world will speak American English, or perhaps Spanish, and other languages will be moot. Probably English, if you watched the Space Track show like my friend Lar used to do.
It’s embarrassing to be monolingual in a world filled with multilingual people. People we’d consider fairly isolated, like some African tribes for instance, can usually speak the dialects of their neighbors passably well.
South Dakotans would have opportunities to learn and use Lakota if they put forth just a little effort.
The best thing about learning a different language is realizing that there are different ways to structure sentences, denote gender, handle verb tense, etc. Then there’s the shock of learning that several languages are easier to learn than English. I’d hate to have to learn English as an adult. Ugh.
Any town that has a Latina population, even a small one, is almost guaranteed to find someone happy to teach and talk Spanish with them. Same for Swahili, Arabic, Portugese, etc.
My friend buys lunch twice a week for Jorge. They spend 90 minutes over the meal, just chatting about whatever comes up. Every word, including ordering, is in Spanish. That’s how she makes sure to get in some practice.
I can still read a fair bit of Hebrew and Koinonia Greek, but I’ve lost a lot of that, and never could really speak it. My Spanish is only tourist level, which means I know several nouns, a few adjectives and verbs and gendered variations. Embarrassing. 😶
Cervezas.
Tráeme dos cervezas. Inmediatamente.
Y algo de carne y patatas con salsa
I had the minimum foreign language (2 years) to graduate from SF Lincoln. It seemed boomers had it tougher than my parents generation or the kids nowadays. Back in that era (after Sputnik), education requirements in science and languages increased.
I always wish I had more language fluency. I took 2 years of Russian in college, concentrating the second year on reading scholarly articles, rather than on speaking. Ecologists in the Soviet Union, and even in Tsarist times, were putting out classic papers, and it was neat to read them in Russian and translate them to English. It was a great way to learn technical/scientific Russian, but it didn’t stay with me very long, because I rarely had to use it after that class. That’s the problem with languages. If you don’t use it, you lose it. The problem with many tech courses, though, is what you learn becomes obsolete in 5 years.
We should be teaching languages differently. As Cory says, the best time to start is in elementary school, but I suppose we don’t have enough teachers who can teach languages to kids that age.
Grudzie … You need a couple por favors in there so you don’t sound like a culo caballo.
I’ve heard the argument that teaching young kids a foreign language impedes their ability to learn English. It’s like the argument that it’s safer not to wear a seat belt because in a car crash you’ll get thrown to safety.
That’s funny Porter. 😁
BTW, Lakota has a wonderful sound, similar to Pastun. There are lots of soft sounds. It flows.
Requiring Lakota in South Dakota could have it’s merits. But I don’t remember the residents speaking Lakota primarily on the reservation.
Requiring Spanish could have its merits. But if your main opportunity rests on the presumption that there’s someone who will routinely speak Spanish with you (why not just pay them to teach you instead of a class?), that’s not the same as being immersed in it.
When the argument points to a group of people who know multiple languages, it’s never a situation that mirrors our own. They know the language of their nearby neighbors and that’s typically it. Do they typically know the language of those who live over 1000 miles away?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/26/europeans-multiple-languages-uk-ireland
I don’t think they do primarily speak Lakota on the res. So?
In my comment I mentioned deliberately setting aside time to practice one’s other language with a native speaker. I understand Skype and similar programs that populate app stores work quite well.
The point is not limited to utilitarian value of a language as has been brought up in several comments and the post itself. But utility is nice too.
I’d like to hear my friend Mr. C weigh in on a requirement to include a mandatory 3 years of Lakota/Dakota/Nakota language in all high schools and Jr. highs. Soon, we would have a population of white people speaking in Lakota all over the state, yet when traveling Europe these children would not be able to speak to the Swiss in a local language besides English. Of course, South America is full of Spanish and Portuguese speakers. Would mandatory Lakota immersion classes be viewed as stealing a culture?
The spanish immersion program in SF is wonderful! Basically Full immersion k-5, exact same curriculum as every other kid in SF, just taught in spanish by a native speaker. Bilingual with none of the hassle!!
Yes, Debbo I think we both at least agree that learning a second language has value other than utility. But, if the question involves requirement, then a suvey course will do.
Personally, I took a survey course in 8th grade (good class, useful). Then I took two years of Spanish and at least one of those years was required I believe. I feel that those classes, particularly the second year, were over-sold.
A past kid of mine learned French, then took that to Morocco and learned Arabic as well. Had the time of his life. Encourage kids in those pursuits, but as Mr. Taggart suggested, don’t make them.
The debate over whether to adopt the proposed new graduation standards goes far deeper than foreign languages. It appears to be motivated by a policy to provide enhanced “flexibility” for districts to decide what should be required … at least that’s what it says in the documents.
The proposal seems to be moving at warp speed (for government) with a goal of “soft implementation” for the 2018-19 school year – assuming the Board of Ed adopts the plan at its meeting tomorrow (7/16) and the legislature’s interim rules committee follows suit on August 20. What’s driving it? Who’s behind it? Why is it suddenly so urgent? The Department of Education is under the guidance of an Interim Secretary for the remainder of Daugaard’s term which seems to make the timing seem strange. Is it about creating a legacy for Dennis Daugaard? And who thinks the legislature is going to support local districts who may want to encourage students to do anything beyond the statutory minimum required for graduation?
Portly before you judge me as “half educated” what languages do you speak?
Sorry, OS. You can be fully educated if you choose.
Comparing foreign language to advanced math misstates the nature of language learning. We all learn language as babies. Everyone can do it, even kids with serious special needs. An analytical understanding of the genitive case and the difference between perfective and imperfective verbs in Russian may be comparable to pre-calc, but listening to, repeating, rearranging, and using vocab words is within the capability of two year olds, not to mention fourteen year olds. Foreign language taught right is not rocket science; it’s meaningful human interaction.
Of course, teaching foreign language right is awfully hard in a public K-12 system that treats anything not on the standardized tests or in welding class as frills and in which we have almost no one except Sioux Falls offering serious foreign language education at the earliest grade levels.
As Donald says, use it or lose it. If we really want functional literacy, we need to put kids in situations where they use the language repeatedly, immersively. I’ll trade two years of foreign language classes for one semester abroad in a non-English-speaking country.
Exactly Cory. It tends not to be taught well and might as well be calculus. A semester abroad instead of hometown classes is a great idea. Encourage it, even incentivize it, just don’t require it.
We need more students to take calculus too. Calculus-avoidance cuts off potential career routes, like engineering or teaching physics. But even calculus should be a desirement.
Minors in a foreign language are actually quite popular among the engineering students. Many go on summer tours of third world nations to build water systems, etc. And many end up working in companies with an international footprint.
In 1971, in fourth year German class, the High School subsidized all of us to go to Germany in the summer. It was a fine incentive and would be money well spent, again. I do wish I’d learned how to weld better, also. My welds often resemble guano.
I won’t require kids to do anything for HS graduation that imposes a financial burden. A semester overseas would cost big bucks. I would love to arrange something like Porter experienced, a school subsidy for such a foreign trip. Wow!
Just to check: should the state require any classes for high school graduation? Are we not able to trust parents and school boards to put their own kids through sufficiently hard paces to get them ready for work and/or college?
We can require classes. A survey course that includes a few languages that students could choose to pursue further would suffice. Maybe an additional semester tops. It doesn’t seem typical that someone’s career opportunities are signifigantly limited without a foreign language. Those classes were over-sold to us on that point.
With math, a financial course and statistics would be far more beneficial as a requirement than Alegbra 2. I would prefer not having Alegebra 1 as a requirement (pre-algebra is enough), but colleges require passing an algebra course.
Cory’s question about the wisdom in setting any requirements for high school graduation opens the door to examination of the role of government at any level. Our state constitution establishes the rationale for the legislature’s support for public education. I suppose the state could delegate that responsibility to parents and local school boards, but legislative action would be required and there would be no assurance that a statewide system of public education would result.
Ben, I’m open to a discussion of what sort of mathematical exercise provides kids with the mental toughness we want them to get from math classes. I recognize that the fun and exciting math that I teach kids in Algebra 2 won’t actually get used that much except by the kids who take more math classes. Maybe if we gave kids math classes with topics they would use more often, like analyzing their personal finances and performing statistical analysis, the mathematical knowledge and mindset would stick with them more. I’m open offering alternative tracks involving rigorous study of personal finance and statistics.
Curt offers a solid response to my question about the justification for statewide standards. Article 8 Section 1, the only part of our state constitution that talks about education itself rather than the funding or other administrivia, says, “The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.”
Is South Dakota’s system of public schools sufficiently “general and uniform” when we allow local control?
“…fun and exciting…Algebra 2…” I agree that advanced math can be fascinating along with many other topics. I just contend it’s not worth requiring.
I love history and student taught 4th grade. So I was curious what the standards were. SD history included the name “John BS Todd”. On one hand I found that hilarious. On the other I was bothered I didn’t know. So I looked him up and was fascinated. Fascinating, just didn’t belong in the standards.
Ben, you know my radical position: we don’t need standards. We need highly educated, highly trained teachers who know what matters and what knowledge and skills kids should emerge from their classrooms with. Good teachers can certainly decide what matters better than most of our legislators. If you love history, I trust you’ll teach it well.
Sudden thought: What if instead of courses we required portfolios? Establish some body of various works we expect of any civilized human being: pretty pictures and other works of art, stories, poems, book reports, informative and persuasive essays, speeches, science lab reports, statistical observations and analyses, personal finance and investment plans… dream up a list of skills-demonstrating projects. Require some minimum number of projects from each category, genre, academic discipline, what-have-you, and require some total number of projects, thus allowing students to choose areas of interest and talent while still requiring them to try a little of everything. Projects instead of subjects… could it work?
I know teachers who team up with other teachers to create a project for students that requires using more than one discipline. Perhaps it’s research, writing and statistical analysis. Maybe illustrations too. Each teacher grades the project as it applies to her discipline.
I agree, dump most of the tests and greatly minimize requirements. Require art, music, science, maths, history, literature, philosophy, physical expression, the world. No details, leave it at that.
Maybe requiring every student to do an hour of art or music each day is just as healthy for their brains as requiring every student to do an hour of math each day.