Teacher Discussion Forums

english has made its way into education system in many non-english speaking countries. ands many kindergardens boasting bilingual education are mushrooming, where kids learn simple words through playing games or singing english songs. i just wonder what's the best way to carry out bilingual education especially in countries where english is only used in some situations such as in english class, when communicating with foreigners?

I doubt if that much is achieved (in terms of the students reaching any sort of sustainable linguistic level comparable with their native level) with kindergarten English classes, that could not be achieved more efficiently and quickly in high school and beyond.

And even if these young children were learning a lot of English, they wouldn't be in any position to demonstrate (or be expected to demonstrate) it until school-leaving/working age, anyhow.

Why is it that very young children (most of whom will grow up and live in their native countries, working in jobs that do not require English) are being forced to study English? Aren't their parents being just a little "ambitious", pushy and demanding? If English is so important to some mothers, why don't they just marry an American or Brit or whatever and let the learning take care of itself? At least this way, there'd be an actual reason for their kid to learn the lingo besides parental or governmental dictat.

Sorry, daisy, I know I haven't answered your question...I'm just wondering what is "best" for kids.

i think it is easy to learn a foreign language at an early age. as for why english, it is just the language policy of a country and such doing is also to keep in line with the international practice, as we can see english is either an additional language or a foreign langugae required to be learned in some countries. so parents have to do so . i only hope that kids can enjoy their learning if there is a best and fruitful way.

Maybe the word "forcing" is to tough for this situation.

Imagine that parents usually want what they believe is best for their kids.

Any time you start doing something when you are little you hypotetically have more chances to have that programmed into your brain, thus making it easy for you in the future.

When it was mentioned that those kids would not use the language they have learned till they get to working age, i think this is a little controvertial.

One needs to be ready, and one needs to be pro-active in the modern world. If kids are not prepared enough for the future what will happen to the adults.

And most of all, learning a foreign or second language brodens peoples's perspectves as well as the way they overview the world around them.

Thinking that people learn another language just to work or use in adult life is to diminish the possibilities that pop up as a person has manages more than one language.

Thanx!

I don't think that saying young children are being "forced" to learn English in e.g. Japan is putting it too strongly, JR. If you think about it, the children don't have an opinion one way or the other, it's their parents and the politicians who have the opinions. Now, there is nothing wrong with having opinions, but I just wonder what the policies that are implemented (on the basis of those opinions and pressures) can really, realistically, achieve.

Of course, you and Daisy are right when you say that it is probably easier to learn a language as a youngster and get a "head start" on the adults, but how much can be achieved in the few hours per week that are usually available in most school curriculums for English?

I mean, there is a big difference between a child who grows up speaking two languages at home (e.g. mainly English with an American father, and mainly Japanese with the Japanese mother) day in and day out, and children who only learn basic greetings, numbers 1-10 and the colours of the rainbow during several years at school.

The low level that most kids attain before junior high school, if not senior high school level can soon be made up with intensive, quality study in senior high school if not university (or through private study with good books and the occassional conversation with a higher level or native speaker. People bemoan the extra expense of private English lessons, but expanding state education to teach more English in schools would surely cost as much if not more in terms of increased taxation). As it is, many children are completely turned off of studying English because of the YEARS they have spent being forced to study it as a school (non-elective, compulsory) subject.

I suppose being learners yourselves (JR and Daisy), you have come to appreciate the advantages that English can bring in opening up the world; perhaps it is only us native speakers who worry about what right we have to expect others to welcome the opportunity to study the language...anyway, let's be clear, I would not ever deny people the chance to study English, but I certainly am not one to insist they study it (at whatever age), and I cannot see that there are many real advantages to be had in beginning studying English at perhaps too early an age.

The important thing, I think, is that learners should decide for themselves that they do indeed need to study English, and that they are therefore motivated to succeed in the endeavour.

I suppose being learners yourselves (JR and Daisy), you have come to appreciate the advantages that English can bring in opening up the world; perhaps it is only us native speakers who worry about what right we have to expect others to welcome the opportunity to study the language...

To be honest with you, i don't understand this part, specially that one of being a native.

As far as I am concerned - and so a lot of researchers - English language nowadays is considered international. It happens that less than 50% of all the speakers are non-native. Also, that it is largely used for business, and so on.

I believe this statement is a bit misunderstood. My aim is not to have a flame war over here. But i simply don't get it. What is the diference of being or not being a native this days.

Could it be because of the arguments i've just given? Or because this is no way to try to understand why a native should know better about language teaching and language acquisition than anyone else.

Concerning kids education, to say they are forced to study this or that subject because they can not decide which one is better for them is to say that they could choose any subject, any time, at their own minds.

What are the evidences that students have only access to numbers and stuff? ESL used to be taught like this - used to - there are a lot of teaching programs that have overcome that one.

Taxation incresing? Why? and How?

Hi again JR! I hope I didn't offend you by calling you a learner. What I perhaps should've said instead, was that you (and Daisy) are people who (presumably) have had to learn English (but who have now reached an appreciable level).

Anyway, if you read through my other posts, you'll see I take quite an interest in "International" or "World" English(es), and I definitely agree with you that it is now no longer the property of native-speakers only.

The point I was trying to make was that in Japan, there seem to be quite naive views floating around about how to learn English, one of them being that a few hours with a (usually poorly-qualified) native speaker each week is somehow going to make a vast amount of difference in the level that children can be expected to achieve in English before they gain the interest and motivation to learn it themselves.

I appreciate that there must be teaching programmes in other countries that have "overcome", that have developed more ambitious or successful programmes for elementary education, but Japan at the moment is not one of them (from what I have seen, there is only the flimsiest of programme outlines in place nationally; it is down to individual schools and teachers - most of whom have no English training AT ALL! - to implement the guidelines in spirit rather than letter. A worrying state of affairs, no?).

Edited-in bit: I forgot to say that in Japanese elementary schools, English is not an actual subject, because the teaching unions have been opposed to having it added to their burden for decades. Apparently the government, under pressure from parents, brought English in through the back door by creating "special study periods" or somesuch in the curriculum for, amoung other things, studying some English in a relaxed, playful way, but the onus still does not fall so much on any Japanese staff (there are not many single-subject classes or specialists at elementary level), but rather on whichever foreign "expert" is appointed by the local board of education to visit the school (usually on a rota basis, and in addition to the more established duties and programmes that the native speaker has at junior high schools in the same area). There may be some foreigners teaching at elementary schools in Japan who have B.Eds etc, but you can be sure there are not many.

Heh, I am not sure of how the schools are funded exactly, or if it would actually call for increased taxation, but one thing's for sure, for the Japanese government to expand the provision of English lessons in elementary schools as much as they want to, the money's going to need to be found from somewhere!

No need for "flame wars", is there!

There is a lot of research to say that learning other languages increases the flexibility of the brain in many other areas of learning. I don't think that you can go wrong learning another or many other languages. Most of the places I taught, the kids learned at least three.
I understand that some parents go overboard in having their kids start early though. I had one four year old group in Japan who came to me in the afternoon after their caligraphy, art, Japanese martial arts and dance programs. They just fell asleep in their mother's arms. The mothers learned though and the younger siblings who had been allowed to nap and later practiced at home with the four year olds. I find that even Canadian parents these days are getting on the pressure band wagon and starting with lectures taped on their tummies when they are pregnant.
No doubt kids can learn and you can make it fun to learn. No doubt there are those who don't make it fun or don't know how to do it too. We need to make our profession more professional. I find that many kids are learning from watching cartoons and movies and we don't have to teach them formally.

Oh, I myself am one of those who are pretty poorly qualified when it comes to teaching young kids. It's not that I don't like kids, or that I can't genki myself up and have fun with them, it's just that I sometimes look at the books I'm supposed to use, and the methods employed in the teaching manuals or suggested by bosses, and wonder just how much of it really relates to or resonates with kids - does it really help us get inside their heads, and in turn make them enter the world we are attempting to weave in the classroom? I often think not. Often, I feel reduced to a figure like the doctor on the videotape questioning Samara (in the American remake of Ringu, "The Ring"). (Strange analogy I know, but it just came to me).

I for one would really appreciate it if some wonderful materials were produced, and some training ("OK Mr Bossy Boss, if you think you know it all, let's see you do it, then") provided. I'd generally prefer not to have to teach kids, and feel the heavy, sapping weight of "giri" (obligation) whenever I have to take on even those few hours at whatever elementary school every other week. I am not a miracle worker, but that doesn't stop some guy in a municipal education office from impressing upon me - very strongly - that it is his dream that every child in his "jurisdiction" will one day (soon!) be "speaking English". (Hai, wakarimash*ta, naruhodo ne etc).

well, here we go again!

First, course books - the good ones I mean - are those who let do your job in a way I feel yourself comfortable. By comfortable I should say free to do what you believe is better for your students.

No matter if they will get there or not, we as teacher, should help them, not lead or guide them.

Of course they'll be those who follow the river flow and just to "their jobs".

Giving packed classes where even an extra comma can be the reason to fire someone.

Unfortunately there are places like this, but a good professional - I mean a real profession - has the right to choose whether to accept our not.

But the core of this discussion has to do with principles. If the ones chosen are the ones to try to help students we are all on the same boat, if not, maybe ...

Thank you everybody for this great discussion thread, I believe everybody is now re-thinking some issues.

Why shouldn't this happen to our students? Think about it!!!