Arabic is a friggin' language! These dumbass, redneck peckerwoods think it means teaching Islam. Arabic has been around a lot longer than Islam. We have a huge disadvantage in not having enough Arab-speakers for our embassies and armies serving in the middle east. There are serious job opportunities for Arabic-speaking US born, non-islamic interpreters that can pass security clearances. Business can use more arabic speakers, too. It's stpuoid to have every school teach then same french and spanish. Let some school teach more exotic languages. It's no friggin' threat.
Ah yes, a perfectly fine argument indeed. I counter with, shouldn't they have a choice if they want it in the curriculum or not?
Since when do parents get to set the curriculum? They can choose whether they want their kids to take the course or not. Are you suggesting that they be allowed to use their ignorant biases to prevent legitimate subjects from being taught? Curriculums are set by Education professionals on National Commitees, on Local School Boards, and Principals.
This hits close to home for me because Mansfield school district borders mine. I think the primary issue here is not whether or not the Arabic studies are part of the curriculum, it is the question of whether it will be mandatory. If it is an elective, then there should be no problem. The bottom line is the US schools should teach more foreign languages, it is a great way to improve a child's world view. Almost all European and Pacific Rim children can speak multiple languages-but normally their second language is English. There is a reason for this. It does no good for a child to be taught a language in school if they are never going to use that language in regular practice. English is used in other countries through business, movies and interaction with people from other countries. How likely is it that a kid in Texas is ever going to use Arabic in a practical setting?
burleson, was mandatory a requirement for getting the grant? if so, then the parent stipulates that his child not be taught. if it is mandatory for the hell of it, then i dont think that's right, but that it should be an elective. although in cash strapped districts, it that was what they had to do to get the grant, then i understand why it is that way. school districts are clawing for money and grants to be able to pay for things or offer kids alternatives in their education. but in reading the article, i dont see anywhere that it is mandatory. if it is not mandatory, then keep your children out of the class, but dont take it away from others. and if your really object, vote your school board member up or down accordingly. they are your representatives and voice in the district. but the school district found a way to get more money to offer children another choice. that is their job, imo. although i do believe mandatory or not, the final call is the parents on if they put their child in the class. its kinda like capitalism. enough parents pull their child from the class or not let them take it, it will go away. if enough children take the class to make it worthwhile in terms of classroom space, etc, it stays. the class has to be economically viable in it's own right to remain in the curriculum. but if my child is going to be taught a subject that puts him ahead in a global economy and makes him/her more employable and with higher pay, great! as long as they arent being taught religion. ANY religion. even if i dont plan on them supporting me in my old age, then it at least gets their freeloading asses out of the house sooner! as far as kids in texas.... man, that's one of the states that i think would have a higher percentage of kids that could find employment with arabic as a language with all the oil companies located in texas. would these parents pitch a hissy fit if the language was chinese? talk about an emerging market. would they object because china has a communist government, even tho communism is not what was being taught? i would like to know what percentage of parents in the district are objecting. is it a small vocal minority? is it an overwhelming majority? inquiring minds want to know.
Okie, I don't have any first hand info since this broke yesterday and I'm in KC this week, so I can't say for sure that it was supposed to be mandatory, which would really be my only objection. However, if I am really honest with myself I have to ask if my reaction would be the same had it been French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese or any other language. I like to think I am fairly open minded and objective, but when it comes to my kids I tend to react with gut feelings as I suspect most parents would. I do stand by my original notion that teaching them Arabic is essentially wasted effort, though. Those kids will likely never to have a practical reason to use that language, so anything they learn will eventually leave them. The money could be spent in a much better way in my opinion.
You know, I used to get riled up about stuff like this, but then I got to thinking. I was forced to take French when I was in school. 1st through 6th grade, it was mandatory that I take French. Nothing I could do about it until they offered Spanish in 7th grade. It sucked, but oh well. So what's the big deal? Personally, I'd love to learn Arabic. It's a fascinating language to me, probably because whenever I would hear it it just sounded like random sounds. That and when I go on deployments I'd like to know when they're talking about me.
which is what i was getting at with my statement regarding teaching chinese as a language. but if there are practical uses for the language, which i can see that there would be plenty of opportunity in the oil industry as a global market, or in the military, why not teach it? it doesnt have to be for everyone. hell, if we are going after islamic terrorists, and through technology are intercepting communications, dont we need people in the future that are fluent in arabic to help in that effort? the language isnt picked up through osmosis. it is not a language that is widely taught, so to have any workers that speak the language, it needs to be taught somewhere, and the younger one is when learning a foreign language, seems the easier it is to learn. and in reading the article, this was a grant specifically for teaching the language and culture. you dont have to teach religion to teach culture and language, but in certain industries, not only is knowing a language good, knowing the culture to go with it will make you more valuable. obviously someone thinks there is a void of employees with the ability to speak arabic or the grants wouldnt be offered in the first place. and i think that is being lost in all this. it was a grant to teach the language. this is money the school would not have otherwise. it is giving them the opportunity to offer something to their students without taking it out of the general budget. with the budget crunch districts in every state are facing, going after specific grants to offer educational choices to students is the smart thing to do. and because of the hoopla, if this district ends up not teaching it, they give the money back. also like i said earlier, its like capitalism. you dont take it from the all the kids because you object (if it isnt mandatory), you just see to it your child doesnt take it. you let the "free market" (so to speak) of choice work.
