Foreign Language in Kindergarten: Yay or Nay?
February 17th, 2009 | View Comments
The Washington Post ran an article today on foreign language programs for young kids. It’s generally near the top of education reformers’ wish lists, but I tend to think it’s a misguided use of education dollars.
While it is true that young children pick up language almost effortlessly, it does not follow that introducing foreign language early into the curriculum gets you the most bang for your buck. For one, a sixteen-year-old learns much faster than a six-year-old. You’ll cover more ground in one semester of high school Spanish than several years of elementary school Spanish.
I also haven’t seen any data that demonstrates the efficacy of introducing foreign language into the curriculum at a young age. Both my parents and my husband grew up in non-English-speaking countries with many, many years of mandatory English instruction and the vast majority of people in those countries can only say a few isolated things.
Virtually all of the language research I’ve read converges on one thing: immersion is key. This doesn’t necessarily mean you have to move to a different country, but you must speak, hear, read, and write a second language consistently to become fluent. Your average foreign language class is not going to suffice (though an immersion school would).
What if fluency isn’t the goal, as the above article says?
“The kids getting it for 30 minutes won’t become fluent, but that’s not the point of those programs,” said Julie Sugarman, research associate at the nonprofit Center for Applied Linguistics in the District. “It’s to give them exposure to the language. Just because kids aren’t able to do calculus in sixth grade doesn’t mean we shouldn’t teach math in elementary school.”
The math analogy fails on a number of levels and I personally find mere “exposure” to be a shoddy reason to spend taxpayer money. If the goal isn’t fluency, fine. But then educators should set some other learning goal for students to meet, otherwise there’s no point.
I’m aware that my opinion is basically heresy in many education and polyglot circles. Let the debate ensue. 
Yvonne posted this on February 17th, 2009 @ 9:08pm in Language Education, Language Psychology | Permalink to "Foreign Language in Kindergarten: Yay or Nay?"
American-born Taiwanese girl who married a Japanese guy. And who forgot about six years' of Spanish grammar and most of the vocab.
E-mail Yvonne
nerissa
celiviel
yvonnekao
Korean-American girl who blogs under a Spanish pseudonym because being culturally confusing is fun. Native speakers say that she has outstanding Spanish (which is a definite compliment) and outstanding German (which is most assuredly not).
Elenita
American-born, Taiwanese guy who took five semesters worth of German and ended up with a major in Linguistics.
Subscribe
I agree that immersion is key. In terms of language acquisition, the window of opportunity for “native fluency” ends shortly after puberty. After that, there is actually a shift in how the brain receives new linguistic information.
Kids don’t need to start learning a new language in kindergarten, but it becomes much more difficult if they start it in high school or even college.
As for exposure to the language… that’s where parenting comes in. Many children’s television shows have Spanish speaking characters. Most large cities have cultural gatherings, such as the Holiday Folk Fair in Milwaukee. There are even communities such as Chinatown or Little Italy where English is not the primary language. One doesn’t need to spend billions of government money to “expose” kids to different languages and cultures. You just need to know where to look.
Just to clarify, are you talking about learning spoken language only or is literacy included?
While this is commonly bandied about, no part of this statement is actually true. What is lost is the ability to acquire language effortlessly—just by hearing other people speak in another language. However, someone who begins learning a language at 16 or older can absolutely achieve native fluency, and even native accent. It just takes effort.
And it’s not true that there’s some sort of shift at puberty. It’s a gradual shift that might begin as early as age 6.
I agree that language class for the sake of language class isn’t going to do all that much for young kids. Nor is exposure while young the only way to gain fluency, near fluency, or a native accent; my Spanish, which I began studying when I was 12, is proof of that.
That said, I don’t agree that early exposure is necessarily a waste of taxpayer money–not if the target language is (1) taught consistently through school, (2) taught well, and (3) there is significant non-classroom exposure. That is essentially how the Scandinavian countries essentially have entire populations of fluent English speakers.
All three of those elements, however, must be present. It doesn’t matter if you have weekly or daily instruction in a target language if you only learn it for a semester or a year–and then start learning a new language after that, as young American students are prone to do. Nor does twelve years of mandatory English instruction do a thing if it’s twelve years of crappy lessons by teachers who don’t know how to teach foreign languages–and sadly, this seems to be more common than one would hope. And even more than that, studying your target language but never using it means those skills will never grow: you need to be able to converse with native speakers, consume un-dubbed and un-subtitled media, and possibly even create your own stuff.
Now, is this possible? Of course; as I said, the Scandinavian countries have essentially already done so–and Chile (among other countries) is exploring how to make this fit into their own educational systems. In theory, the US could do it, too, and have students with foreign language proficiency–but I’m not holding my breath. Why?
So, maybe one day. But, honestly, I’m planning on sending my future kids to immersion schools, rather than hoping things improve before then. Hope springs eternal, but I’m too bloody impatient for that.
I tend to agree with Elenita on this point. If done right, exposing kids to another language early would be worth it.
I also agree, though I lament the fact, that the US doesn’t do a good job in promoting the value of knowing another language.
I think that this will change, though, with increasing amounts of exposure to non-English speakers through the Internet, chat rooms, instant messaging, and so on. A lot of stuff that’s not in English is being created.
It’s a shame, though, really. I think that if Americans at large spoke foreign languages, we’d get along a bit better with other countries!
Hablo español por cierto.
(I speak Spanish, by the way.)
Jeg snakker også norsk. Så morsomt at du nevnte skandinaviske språk du.
(I also speak Norwegian. How funny that you mentioned Scandinavian languages!)
Anyway, let’s hope.
Kevin
Welcome to the blog, Kevin! And thanks for your comment.
I think we agree more than we disagree. I would definitely support spending money on programs that were well done, or on building more immersion schools. But if what we’re going to get is just an expansion of the piecemeal, poorly-taught foreign languages courses that unfortunately seem to be the status quo, then I’d rather not. I think the problems we see in foreign language instruction are just another symptom of the undervaluation of good teachers in this country—just throwing money at a problem doesn’t get very far without a shift in the underlying cultural attitude.
Necesito practicar mi español. Vivo en Houston—¡muchos hispanohablantes aquí!
I’ll let you guys play Count the Grammar Mistakes.
Hi Yvonne,
I agree with that. Just as we can waste money on language courses that fail to deliver, the government (at any scale) can do the same with hiring teachers.
I think that a big problem we need to address – and this is maybe at least one thing they COULD spend money on and achieve early – is the attitude towards foreign languages and learning them. I benefited from my Spanish classes (which were probably just alright) because I got interested in learning Spanish and would take whatever I could get. But those who weren’t interested got practically nothing out of them. The interest and motivation is crucial. I read something the other day that people who don’t want to learn languages, won’t.
It’s sadly true.
P.S. Your sentence was perfect
Vivo en California Norte. ¡Competemos en el número de hispanohablantes!
Un saludo.
Mucho gusto, Kevin. Estoy feliz que nos encontraste.
I’m inclined to agree you on most everything, particularly the need to motivate students about language learning. I suspect that, like many things, this is a matter of supply and demand: if a critical mass wanted quality language instruction in school (at least for their kids), governments would find funding and teachers quickly enough. Alas, many native English speakers–I include Britons and other nationalities in this–have become arrogant about the spread of their native tongue.
I agree that an attitude change needs to happen. But unfortunately, many people have an “English is good enough for me, it should be good enough for everyone” mentality. Parents teach this to their kids and it spreads. Unfortunately, local governments seems to agree with this stance as more and more states push to make English an official language, including my own state of Wisconsin. Most of these laws have been passed within the past 25 years.
Ironically, many of the people who believe that people in the United States should all be fluent in English are the same people who make little to no effort to learn the language when they visit a non-English speaking nation (or decide not to visit such places at all).