Dear Is Mise,

They actually list the languages in the link.
Go back and try reading the report again.
It will give you a better understanding.

See you on another discussion, I'm done with
this one.

I'd like to Thank all those who contributed.

Cheers.

Foxy ducks again.

Foxy,
Do you believe in compulsory teaching of Asian languages or any compulsory language teaching?

Dear Is Mise,

I don't duck. However seeing as you ask
so nicely and politely - I shall reply and
then I shall move on.

Should learning a second language be compulsory
in Australian schools?

Yes - but with the following provisos -
which Prof. Joseph Lo Bianco outlines:

"All students should experience well designed and
supported language programs, taught by well-trained and
supported language teachers in schools that actively
support language teaching linked to universities that
are fully committed to widespread and successful language
study."

"It is worth reiterating why this is important. The
principal reason is to do with the deepest purposes of
education itself, to instill knowledge, to deepen
understanding, to stimulate reflection and to foster skills."

"Languages are intimately linked to the essentially
humanistic cultural and intellectual reasons for making
education compulsory. Every effort to redress the persisting
under performance in language education is amply justified."

http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=resdev

Dear Foxy,

<<Languages are intimately linked to the essentially humanistic cultural and intellectual reasons for making education compulsory.>>

So the bottom line is that in your view, cultural and intellectual reasons justify violence against children and their parents.

We should learn to read and write Asian languages. But as I understand it most Asian languages are tonal: the same set of phonemes can have drastically different meanings depending on the intonation they are given. By all accounts, tonal languages are bloody difficult to learn to speak if you're not brought up from a very young age speaking them.

To be fair, they don't have it much easier coming the other way. English is notoriously difficult to learn as a second language because many of our words don't follow simple phonetic rules: consider through/trough/tough as an example.

Teaching children a second language from an early age has been shown to have a positive impact on their entire education. I think kids should be taught Latin: you only have to read most of the posts around here to realise that grammar hasn't been taught well in our schools for a very long time. There's nothing like trying to conjugate Latin verbs to teach a kid about grammar. I daresay some of the old dogs around here could benefit from learning a few new tricks about basic sentence structure, if only they could be persuaded that they don't already know everything worth knowing.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Thank you for raising this important topic. I was not aware of Julie Bishop’s project. It merits further research but while I am willing to vote for a compulsory second language at high school level, I firmly oppose any obligation that this should be limited exclusively to Asian languages.

I have no objection to the government recommending Asian languages provided it lays out all the pertinent facts, for and against, in an objective manner. Naturally, there should be no discrimination of any sort among students based on choice of language.

Happily, we enjoy a democratic political regime in Australia and this should be preserved above all other considerations, however important they may appear to Julie Bishop. Dictatorial methods have no place in a democracy.

We have just had an example here in Paris, yesterday, of people wanting to impose their law on four of France’s most famous cartoonists who worked for France’s leading weekly satirical newspaper “Charlie Hebdo”. They and eight others were ruthlessly mowed-down by a couple of self-appointed “terrorists” armed with a Kalashnikov, in the newsroom of the newspaper. Their unique fault was to have drawn satirical sketches of the prophet Mohammed published in “Charlie Hebdo” ten years previously.

Whatever the motivation of the "terrorists", an act of this nature can only be interpreted as a refusal to recognize the freedom of the press and to recognize the freedom of expression - both of which are rock-bottom foundation stones of democracy.

Allow me to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Online Opinion and The Forum for existing and offering us the means of freely expressing our ideas and opinions - however trivial, outlandish, thick-headed, obtuse, disrespectful or satirical they may (often) be - this thread being no exception.

JE SUIS
CHARLIE

.