We've been over this already. Kids don't always realize what is important to them. Just because they have no interest or motivation in something, that doesn't mean it's unimportant.
Get off this line of "reasoning".
[/QUOTE
This isn't about "importance".
1. You are arguing for better methods to motivate students. Also you said young students are not necessary motivated by whether English will useful to them in the future. I find it odd you want to argue now about the importance of English to these students. You tell me that whether these students realize it is important or not is not a reason to decide to teach them English or not. You want to change your position to English being important to them in the future. And that while they might not find it important they should be motivated to learn. If you want to take this position that is fine. Though you have not been consistent up to this point.
Me: Really? Who has tested all of them? Show me the reports.
How? And, just how fairly and accurately?
You brought up the testing in the first place. I responded that I did not mention anything about testing. BUT since you brought up the subject of testing I said that these students are being tested anyway. They are being tested all the time in their classes, are they not? I don't think they are taking one general exam but they are being tested to get their grades right?
Anyway you picking at this point which I never mentioned in my original post is pointless. My point was allowing more choices. Let the students choose.
Go ahead and assume. I wouldn't be so bold as to make such a grand assumption, though. Back this up!
Glenski my post was not confusing at all. Read it again. Anyway I will try to explain it further. When scientists do studies they usually use a control group to compare results. I wrote that if conditions where controlled, i.e. if conditions were perfect(good teachers and good teaching methods) there would still be students who not be motivated. Sorry but it isn't much of an assumption there since there has really been nothing when even controlled for in any scientific study that has had 100% efficacy. Odds are drastically on my side, it isn't much of a leap. Since conditions are not perfect compared to our hypothetical control group one can assume that the results would be worse. Again this is not a grand assumption, this is elementary.
How? I can think of only one way, and it goes back to the same old story we've hashed out here--that students don't always know what is good for them. You seem to think they can make those decisions. Isn't that what you are saying?
I have already stated as students PROCEED through school, when they are not little children and start thinking about their future that they should have choice.
You argue:
Teaching children English because they don't always know what is good for them.
Changing the methods will result in less children being unmotivated compared to now.
You don't propose anything for those that don't want it.
You haven't yet reconciled the disparity between the small minority of adults that need English and teaching all students.
Eventually these students will be adults and will realize whether English was good for them. I think that it could safely be assumed once they hit the job market that they will know whether it was good for them. Or is that too grand of an assumption? Those that attend college also might have some idea.
What is so bad about giving students choice? Seriously can you answer this? If there were electives every semester, they could try many different things and find something interesting.
Why would fewer teachers be better qualified? Do you even know the system now for choosing teachers here, especially foreign ones?
Hey it is a bureaucracy I don't expect the system to be very good at all. I was speaking from a business perspective that less spots would increase competition for those spots. Better teachers would be selected. I don't expect anyplace that receives public funds to use those funds efficiently. I already mentioned the bureaucracy as the main problem confronting any change.
Private schools though could implement what I espouse. They could also try it your way. I think in a private school my way would result in a more tailored approach where all students could have a chance to learn something that interests them, or they find motivating or even important. Not only that it would also be a more efficient use of funds.