Global Orientation

At the last Board of Education meeting, in addition to dealing with the critical issue of security, we also continued our discussion of FLES—the teaching of language at the elementary school level as well as our discussion of a world languages orientation. Often, at the college level, students look to minimize their course work in foreign languages. But in a global environment, where English is not the only world language, such an orientation is clearly short sighted.

The recommendation of the Superintendent, which we accepted, was that students would begin learning Mandarin in kindergarten. From kindergarten until third grade, Mandarin would be the only foreign language option, after which a student could decide to take Spanish instead of Mandarin. Both are key world languages and both are being taught at an ideal developmental time for our kids. Then in seventh grade, students would once again have a choice, this time between continuing with Mandarin or Spanish or beginning French, Italian, or Latin. Each of the additional language options is an important and valuable alternative that works well strengthening the academic preparedness of our students. For me, my priority in an extricably interwoven world would be the world languages that will dominate the 21st century. But there are other good and valid reasons for studying other important languages and as a school board member, I am pleased we are providing these language options. All serve an important purpose.

In making this decision, there is another important part of the equation that needs to be factored in here, as it does for the security issue that I discussed last week. We are living in a time where resources for schools are constrained, often as in this area, via a tax cap that effectively limits increases. As we increase our options in and commitment to foreign languages, are there areas where we will be less able to provide the options or the commitment that would also serve well the needs of our kids. Will we be able to do less in the vital STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) areas? We know how competitive the world economy is today; doing less in STEM would not be a wise strategy. Will be need to offer less in the arts or music? Will athletics suffer? All have a tremendous value in the education of our children. Should we let class size increase? Reduce the time in class for various subjects, etc? Or will we do less than is called for in the security area? In addition, there are recommendations to increase the length of the school day or the school year that we are hearing more frequently. How compatible are these with the constraints we are facing?

I am an advocate for not raising taxes and not raising government spending but I am also a realist. Important priorities for our children or our country should not fall victim to arbitrary taxing and spending constraints.

LOTE

Serving on a school board has increased my exposure to acronyms. I started my board service already understanding STEM, and have now gained a familiarity with (but not a respect for) the APPR evaluation system. I am also familiar with ELA, especially when it involves an added emphasis on testing, and have now added LOTE to my acronym assortment. LOTE stands for Languages Other Than English, which for me is a very important part of the education a student should receive before entering college. At my local school board meeting this week, we dealt with the elementary school language experience and it was one of the best discussions we have had as a board. In addition, it was enriched (in the public comment section of the meeting) by both the participation of language teachers and members of the public. At the present time, my district’s elementary school students receive exposure to Latin beginning in grade 4 and continuing in grade 5. Everyone is in agreement that this exposure to Latin is a positive factor in the education of our students with benefits that extend beyond Latin language and culture. The discussion on the agenda was precipitated by a proposal by the superintendent to begin language at the kindergarten level and to specifically choose Mandarin as the language that would be taught. Part of the impetus for this change was the added testing at the 4th and 5th grade levels and the added preparation that helps our students do well on these tests. With this testing being concentrated at the same time as the Latin language exposure, it resulted in an overly pressured situation both for the students and for teachers. Another part of the impetus was that the earlier you start foreign language training, the greater the potential for mastery of the language. And here the goal is clearly fluency, rather than exposure. A student beginning Mandarin in elementary school will hopefully have the option of taking Mandarin through 12th grade.  Why the change to Mandarin? Understandable given the superpower status that China has achieved especially in its economy. I regularly see the Chinese students who are studying on Hofstra’s campus. Their motivation is clear as is their desire to enhance their second language skills, first learned by these Chinese students taking English starting in elementary school. U.S. students, on the other hand, have much more limited 2nd language skills and often seem to lack the motivation to achieve sophisticated second language skills. In an ever more competitive world economy where not everyone is willing to use English, language skills matter and as we strive to educate our students to succeed, mastery of Mandarin will clearly help. In the course of the board discussion, I endorsed the early start of second language education but suggested that the case could also convincingly be made for Spanish, the most used language on our planet. What I really wanted was to offer both languages from kindergarten on, but the funding just isn’t there to make that happen. Ultimately what we perhaps should consider is to start Spanish in 3rd grade (now it starts in 6th grade) while at the same time consolidating some of the language options presently available beginning in 6th grade. As part of the overall discussion there were advocates for continuing and perhaps expanding Latin, advocates for Mandarin from kindergarten on, advocates for Mandarin and Spanish from kindergarten on, and also advocates for a FLEX approach, with a one or two year exposure to one language, followed by another language, and even perhaps a third language. When it came time to vote, I voted in favor of Mandarin feeling that given the complexity of the language, an early start was essential and feeling also that this was an important language that would become more important in the years ahead. But what I also realized is that there is no one right answer to what the language should be and how much exposure there should be. Any of the proposals being considered had the potential to provide our students with outstanding language preparation. Voting for Mandarin was actually easier when I realized we were choosing what we thought was the best option from among a series of options that would all serve our kids well. It’s always better when no alternative available to you represents a bad choice. In summary, we need more language skills as part of an excellent k-12 education (and I also wouldn’t mind fewer acronyms as part of the education vocabulary).