03-14-2003, 04:10 PM
Hi,
While I am in favor of education in general, I consider much of what is being done in practice a waste of time and money. As one example, ESL. The question is not "should an immigrant learn the language of the country they've immigrated to?" for the answer to that is a self evident "yes, they should". The question is whether teaching that language as a school subject is the best way to do it.
Generations of non-Anglo Saxon Europeans came to the USA (and Canada) and learned the language. No special provisions or allowances were made for them (I know, I "flunked first grade because I did not know English). Many (I'd say most) of those people learned enough English to get by on. So, is the cost and effort of ESL worth while? Do more people learn English with the course than without it? Do people learn significantly more (or "better") English through ESL than they do by simply living in an English speaking environment? That, BTW, is *not* a trivial question. Native born children seem to learn all the "bad habits" of language use in their region.
So the cost-benefit ratio must again be examined. The schools would have you believe that people are incapable of learning a language on their own. Experience and history show otherwise. Do the schools make a difference? Enough to justify the resources? Or does the very concept of turning the necessity of learning a language into a school subject hinder the progress of that learning?
Yes, we need a better educational system. But there are many aspects of that system that need to be reviewed and analyzed, including athletics, extra curricular activities, even the basic curriculum. Even basic assumptions, like the nine month school year that was an inheritance from a more agrarian society (and from the prevalence of outbreaks of disease in the hot summer months) needs to be re-examined.
So, when the schools ask for more money, the tax payer and voter should ask how the money they have received in the past was spent. If the money was being used to "teach a horse to sing", then said tax payer and voter should perhaps force the system to re-evaluate its purpose and goals.
--Pete
While I am in favor of education in general, I consider much of what is being done in practice a waste of time and money. As one example, ESL. The question is not "should an immigrant learn the language of the country they've immigrated to?" for the answer to that is a self evident "yes, they should". The question is whether teaching that language as a school subject is the best way to do it.
Generations of non-Anglo Saxon Europeans came to the USA (and Canada) and learned the language. No special provisions or allowances were made for them (I know, I "flunked first grade because I did not know English). Many (I'd say most) of those people learned enough English to get by on. So, is the cost and effort of ESL worth while? Do more people learn English with the course than without it? Do people learn significantly more (or "better") English through ESL than they do by simply living in an English speaking environment? That, BTW, is *not* a trivial question. Native born children seem to learn all the "bad habits" of language use in their region.
So the cost-benefit ratio must again be examined. The schools would have you believe that people are incapable of learning a language on their own. Experience and history show otherwise. Do the schools make a difference? Enough to justify the resources? Or does the very concept of turning the necessity of learning a language into a school subject hinder the progress of that learning?
Yes, we need a better educational system. But there are many aspects of that system that need to be reviewed and analyzed, including athletics, extra curricular activities, even the basic curriculum. Even basic assumptions, like the nine month school year that was an inheritance from a more agrarian society (and from the prevalence of outbreaks of disease in the hot summer months) needs to be re-examined.
So, when the schools ask for more money, the tax payer and voter should ask how the money they have received in the past was spent. If the money was being used to "teach a horse to sing", then said tax payer and voter should perhaps force the system to re-evaluate its purpose and goals.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?