Michael E. Meyerhoff, EdD
In this day and age of the global economy, it is becoming increasingly desirable to be fluent in more than one language. Unfortunately, most of us do not have particularly fond memories of learning a foreign language. Typically, we struggled mightily to master Spanish, French, German, or whatever, starting in middle school and ending mercifully at high school graduation. In fact, if we did not need to have those classes as part of our academic record when applying to upper level colleges, we probably would have preferred to avoid them altogether.
It is interesting to note that our difficulties were not the result of inevitable problems inherent in language learning. Instead, they were due to the occasional tendency of the public schools to ignore fundamental principles of human development. In the case of conquering a foreign tongue, it was not so much a matter of tackling a tough topic as it was an exercise in bad timing.
It seems clear that human beings have a special knack for learning language, and it has been theorized that our brains are pre-wired for picking up vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc. It is like our computer comes with the relevant software pre-installed. And during the first years of life, this wiring is extraordinarily flexible and efficient.
Whether it is Japanese or Portuguese, Swedish or Swahili, Flemish or Farsi, infants and toddlers quickly, easily, and quite effectively learn to understand and speak whatever language they are exposed to.
Furthermore, when very young children are exposed to two languages, they manage to pick up both with virtually no problems. Although they may be a bit slow in reaching some of the standard language development milestones, with appropriate role models, by the third birthday they usually are fully fluent in each tongue. They are able to switch back and forth as appropriate with absolutely no signs of stress or confusion.
Regrettably, this extraordinary flexibility and efficiency fades with age. Evidently, the wiring in the brain becomes somewhat rigid after a while. So, with each passing year, it becomes increasingly arduous to work with systems other than those that already have been installed. Of course, with human beings there are no strict rules. Some people manage to hold onto the capacity for quick and easy language learning into adulthood. But for most of us, we have pretty much lost this developmental advantage by the time we reach adolescence.
This really should not come as a big surprise, especially to anyone familiar with the typical experiences of immigrant families in America. Think about it. The grandparents never really learn to speak English very well. Most of their conversations are conducted in their native language, and they go to movies and read newspapers that feature the mother tongue as well. The parents are a little more successful. After a lot of hard work and a considerable amount of time, they manage to become fairly fluent in English. But they still retain accents and routinely make errors that reflect strong remnants of their native language.
Meanwhile, the youngsters are speaking English fluently with no sweat within a few months of their arrival. And they do so without losing a drop of fluency in their native language along the way. This often produces the comical scene where some official comes to the family home, and a five-year-old child ends up serving as interpreter for a large collection of adults who otherwise would have a distinctly difficult time communicating with each other.
So why do the public schools ordinarily introduce foreign language lessons at a point in development when such lessons are highly likely to be problematical for most pupils? Tradition is the main culprit. A long time ago, perhaps someone figured that learning a second language was a complex task that necessitated a significant amount of intellectual maturity, so it was reserved for students in the higher grades. And once that became the official policy in the public schools, it became virtually impossible to alter it despite continuing evidence that it just wasn't working very well.
Therefore, if you consider it desirable for your child to learn a second language Ð and you want your child to learn it quickly, easily, and effectively Ð make sure the lessons begin early in life. Some schools have started introducing second language learning in kindergarten and the early grades, but we are still a long way from universal good sense in this area, so you may have to make arrangements on your own.
By the way, politics also can enter the picture too, particularly when we are talking about students who come from other countries and have to learn English as the second language. On one side of the debate are the proponents of "full immersion." They say that throwing the kids into classrooms where only English is employed is the most efficient way for them to learn the language, and thus will be the quickest way for them to succeed in our system.
On the other side are the proponents of "bilingual" education. They say that the kids will lose too much while struggling to master English, so in all fairness, they should be given all academic lessons in their native tongue until they are sufficiently fluent in English. And there are significant political points that support both sides.
What each side fails to realize is that neither position makes much sense from a full developmental perspective. Instead of having school boards argue bitterly for months and then adopt one or the other policy, it would be far wiser to institute a dual approach.
The younger children will do fine with full immersion, and a bilingual approach might actually delay their progress. Meanwhile, the older children would suffer terribly with full immersion and would benefit much more with a bilingual approach.
Therefore, if you have an interest in seeing that your tax dollars are being spent wisely, you might want to attend the meetings if and when your local school board addresses this issue. If you look at the physical development of children, a "one size fits all" policy for all kids from kindergarten to college is absurd. And it is equally ridiculous in the cognitive and linguistic realms. Proponents of the two major politically-based approaches probably will not be happy with you, but you'll make a lot of kids happy and prevent precious dollars from going down the drain if you fight for an approach that makes developmental sense.
Michael K. Meyerhoff, Ed.D., is executive director of The Epicenter Inc., "The Education for Parenthood Information Center," a family advisory and advocacy agency located in Lindenhurst, Illinois. E-mail him at epicntrinc@aol.com.
Michael K. Meyerhoff, Ed.D., is executive director of The Epicenter Inc., "The Education for Parenthood Information Center," a family advisory and advocacy agency located in Lindenhurst, Illinois. E-mail him at epicntrinc@aol.com.
May not be reproduced in any format without written permission.
