Using your argument, we should be offering Indonesian, Tagalog and some of the languages spoken in India before we offer mandarin?

Moreover, and given English is the universal language of both commerce and science, why not ensure excellence in that area first then follow that with music and mindfulness. Before we further clutter a curriculum that needs to focus first and foremost on the STEM subjects and proficiency there before we go off catering to this of that "educators" personal hobby horse.

Besides, in this day and age, we can buy a tablet that'll translate from English to any other language and visa versa.

And why mandarin the most complicated language in the world. Unless it becomes mandatory for a conquered nation or latest Chinese possession, given our current predilection for selling real estate as a remedy for the manufacturing sector we've also traded away for some mythical or short-term expediency?

Ying Tong, Ying Tong, piddle lipo, piddle lipo.
Alan B.

Australian schools can't even teach kids to express themselves in English. Trying to teach them foreign languages is a joke.

Learning another language is a good thing for every human being - it gives you insight into other ways of thinking and living, and helps you understand the workings of your own mother tongue so much better.

Which language students learn at school is way less important than the quality of teaching and the commitment to achieving genuine outcomes. At present, very few Australian students will leave school having acquired anything more than the most basic competency in a language other than English.

Chasing after a new priority language every 10 or 20 years will do no good if there are insufficient teachers who are themselves fluent, if there are low standards of teaching, and if there is a lack of genuine commitment to students achieving fluency.

In many European countries, students leave school fluent in at least 2 languages additional to their mother tongue. There's no reason at all that Australia couldn't commit to all kids leaving high school able to speak an extra language at a solid, proficient level- it's just a lack of commitment that holds us back.

Nah, tonal languages are dumb. About 4% of the population suffer from amusia, the inability to discriminate between differences in pitch. For those people, tonal languages represent a huge barrier to verbal communication... which would I imagine would suck even more than not being able to read.

Teaching kids tonal languages will only encourage them, which is the last thing we should be doing. Teach them Spanish instead - there's a reason Esperanto was heavily based on Spanish: because it's not overly complicated like English or Chinese.

Or Auslan - not all languages need to be spoken, and wouldn't it be great if everybody born in Australia could communicate with each other regardless of disability?

The author is probably spouting non-issues when:

1.

1(a) His sample size only concerns Queensland (what about other larger population states - eg. NSW and VIC)

1(b) in Qld it only concerns schools (what about Unis and TAFES?)

1(c) of schools it only concerns PUBLIC schools (what about Mandarin teaching in Catholic and Independent schools?)

1(d) what about learning Cantonese Chinese? (100 millions of Chinese speak Cantonese in PRC, Singapore, Malaysia etc)

2. Is Chinese language teaching a huge waste of 12+? years school-uni language training when many millions of Chinese can talk to us speaking English

AND

3. Also 12+? years school-uni Chinese language training is a huge waste when 100,000s of CHINESE-AUSTRALIANS are bilingual in Mandarin and/or Cantonese AND English. They can negotiate and interpret from their family Chinese background without spending 12 years learning and updating their Chinese language.

Well may the author posit:

"Are we still turning Japanese? I don't think so."

To that I wittily retort with that great Vapors ditty "Turning Japanese" the 1980 Top of The Pops, right here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLQeb5NGt3E

So there!