Linguistic policy gone bad

The Arizona Department of Education, motivated by No Child Left Behind policy, has recently instituted a policy to remove teachers with "heavily accented or ungrammatical" English from teaching English in Arizona schools.

Here is a Wall Street Journal article that reports on the policy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html

A significant number of professors from the U. of Arizona prepared the following statement, which explains problems with this policy:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~hammond/ling_statement_final.pdf

In addition, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), an international professional organization for English teachers, released this reaction:
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/bin.asp?CID=1&DID=13248&DOC=FILE.PDF

A couple of reactions of my own:
1. "Accent" and "fluency" are not the same thing.
In this case, I assume that the words "fluent" and "fluency" are being used as a general measurement of overall proficiency in the language. It is quite a common, but incorrect, belief that the "heaviness" of someone's accent reflects how proficient they are with a language. Many people who learned English after another language speak English with an accent, but that does not mean that their English is ungrammatical or bad. In my work, for example, I interact with a number of professors and graduate students who speak with accents because they are non-native speakers of English, but whose English proficiency is good enough to write papers for research journals, teach university classes, and otherwise contribute to the academic community. The fact that "heavily accented" is being used as a criterion to decide that teachers aren't fit to teach English suggests that the creators of the policy based the policy on their own opinions about language rather than linguistic fact and research. Current research shows that foreign-accented English is no less intelligible to non-native speakers than native-accented English. (In fact, two colleagues and I are currently engaged in a research project about this very phenomenon.) Just because a native speaker thinks they can't understand a teacher doesn't mean the students will not.

2. It is not bad to learn a language from a non-native speaker.
Non-native speakers who teach language often have some distinct advantages over their native-speaker peers. Since native speakers of a language can use the language without having explicit conscious knowledge of grammar, often non-native speakers have a superior knowledge of the patterns of how the language works. Because they have had the experience of learning the language after their native language, they are familiar with the pitfalls their students might have and are therefore able to help students avoid them. In addition, if the teacher shares another language with the student, that language can be used to explain things that the student might not be getting when they are explained in English. Research shows that language learners do not learn mistakes from each other. In other words, just because students are exposed to grammatical mistakes that the teacher makes does not mean that the students will acquire those same grammatical mistakes.

3. Good teaching is more than just knowledge of the subject to be taught.
I think many people have had experiences where they had a teacher who was very knowledgeable on the subject, but just couldn't do a good job of teaching it to others. In the case of English teaching, just because a person is able to speak English does not make that person qualified to teach it to others. This is why at my university, for example, we have a TESOL certificate program that takes a minimum of a year of coursework for people to become educated in how to teach English to non-native speakers. A teacher with lower English proficiency, but good teaching skills, may be more effective at helping students than a poor teacher with high proficiency.

4. Reassignment of teachers is problematic.
First of all, teachers cannot be simply reassigned to other classes because sometimes they don't have the necessarily skills and certifications in the new subject they are supposed to teach. You can't take a history teacher, for example, and assign them to teach math. Second, if jobs already exist that these teachers don't have, won't the jobs already be filled by other teachers? Third, and most importantly, it is hard to imagine that anywhere in Arizona, a teacher could be assigned to a class that didn't include some English language learners. Just because a student has been "mainstreamed" does not mean that they can't benefit from additional language-learning help. In fact, because of this, where I live, all new teachers entering the field are required to have an ESL endorsement. So reassigning teachers to other classes would not remove them from interacting with ESL students, and therefore the policy would not have the intended effect of protecting (as it were) ESL learners from non-native English.

To be fair to the Arizona Department of Education, apparently they are not solely to blame for this poorly-conceived idea. According to the Wall Street Journal article referenced above, in order to receive No Child Left Behind funds the state should ensure that English students are being taught by "fluent" speakers. However, Arizona has chosen to define fluency by including accentedness as one of the criteria. The Arizona Department of Education should inform itself of current linguistic research before making policies of this type.

Well-behaved women

I've seen it many times, usually in bumper-sticker form: "Well-behaved women rarely make history."  The message, of course, is that women should break out of their expectations for behavior if they really want to make a difference in the world.

But it seems to me that I can list a lot of good women who behaved according to appropriate principles who also made a big difference in the world.  Eve, Miriam, Deborah, Mary, Elizabeth and Anna are women in the Bible who come to mind.  We could also mention people like Betsy Ross, Florence Nightingale, Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen, and Jackie O., who are certainly famous and not for doing anything "wrong".  Personally I choose to defy the message that a woman can't be important if she is good.

Hugs.

My best friends know that I love hugs.  And, when I think about it, I enjoy being held but I think I enjoy holding someone else even more.  Of course it's practically impossible to tell because they are both happening at the same time.  Sweet.

Why I'm a Cougar

Okay, I don't really see myself as a COUGAR, exactly, but I thought it would make a dramatic title. This post is about why I prefer to date younger men.

In order to explain all this, I have to explain that I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I live in Utah. This is a big part of the issue because here in Utah about 50% of people are latter-day saints, meaning that LDS beliefs have an overall pretty big impact on the culture and how people live around here.

And in case you're not familiar with LDS beliefs we believe strongly in the importance of the family. We believe that marriage and family is where we can find our greatest happiness in life, and that families who are joined in a temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will continue to enjoy each other's love and company beyond death. These are fundamental beliefs in the Church, and these beliefs cause latter-day saints to seek marriage earnestly and take it seriously. Which means that, in the area where I live, people get married younger, often when the guy is in his mid-twenties and when the girl is in her early twenties. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, the median age of first marriage in the United States is 28.1 for men and 25.9 for women, where the median age of marriage in Utah is 24.6 for men and 22.1 for women, according to these figures published by Utah Department of Workforce Services. (Although the former group of figures comes from 2009 and the latter group of figures apparently comes from 2005, even comparing 2005 numbers to each other the median ages are lower in Utah than the rest of the United States.) The same report from Workforce Services also mentions that a greater percentage of people in Utah are married than people in any other state (60% people 15 years or older).

In other words, marriage is a big deal where I live and in the communities I am a part of. That coupled with the fact that the population of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is about 2/3 women and 1/3 men means that the men have their pick, as it were. On the Utah LDS singles scene it seems that there are more women than men out there. If you're a latter-day saint male from Utah and you're not married by age 30, there is quite likely a good reason. For example, the last guy I went out with that was near to my own age (and he didn't even grow up in Utah) apparently had some kind of psychological problem that made him think it wasn't okay to shower before he went on the date and he smelled. I could hardly stand to sit next to him in the movie we saw. Another famous stereotype of the Utah bachelor is the guy that is so picky that, while he has met lots of wonderful women, he will not date or marry any of them.

So what's a 32-year-old LDS Utah gal supposed to do? The obvious choice is to date younger men.

There is another group of men that I see as generally potentially dateable. That is men who are around my age (30sish) who are divorced. Divorce is common everywhere these days, so if I didn't want to date divorced men it would cut out quite a large sector of the dating pool, as it were. Plus, I figure that these were men who were willing to get married at least once. All of the divorced guys that I have dated so far treated me very well and seemed to be good men.

Why not date older men, say guys who are in their 40s or 50s? Personal preference. I tend to get along better with younger people; for example, most of my friends are younger than I am. Also, when I envision my future marriage partner, I envision a partner, not someone who is going to die 20 years before I do.

Of course the opinions expressed in this post are a generalization; individuals do not always reflect the characteristics of the age groups they belong to.

Fairies for grown-ups

It seems like us adults are kind of missing out in the fairy department. I mean, once the Easter Bunny has lost his luster and you aren't raking in any more cash because the Tooth Fairy has already collected your baby teeth, it's just not as fun anymore. So I would like to propose some fairies who work more with adults. Why should kids get all the benefits?

The Lost Keys Fairy -- When you lose your keys, this fairy magically places them on your nightstand so you have them when you wake up the next morning. She often hangs out with the Lost Wallet Fairy and the Lost Pen Fairy.

The Acne Fairy -- Be nice to this fairy with a fickle personality! If she likes you your skin will look gorgeous, but if she's having a bad day, you just might get a "third eye" before that big date or important business presentation.

The Chewing Gum Fairy -- You know how, sometimes, you just know that you have bad breath? The Chewing Gum Fairy is the one who puts that magical piece of gum in your pocket or at the bottom of your purse, just when you need it.

The Computer Fairy -- This fairy's time to shine is when you are having a computer problem and can't figure it out. The signal to bring the computer fairy out of hibernation is rebooting the computer. That's why computer problems always magically go away when you reboot; the computer fairy has gone into action.
This fairy is also an expert at editing e-mail and making sure that the messages get to the right places. This fairy can make sure that you don't accidentally cc that "You won't believe what I did last night" e-mail to your mother or your "Work sucks" e-mail to your boss.

The Cell Phone Fairy -- Perhaps the cell phone fairy is the most important fairy of them all. This fairy saves you from all kinds of phone-related disasters. She makes sure that your phone is on silent at crucial moments so your "I'm Bringing Sexy Back" ringtone doesn't go off in, say, the middle of church. The cell phone fairy also conveniently turns off your phone when you are about to receive a call from someone you don't want to talk to, so it goes straight to voicemail and you can go on with your day. No longer will your nosy sister feel offended when she counts the number of times it rings and realizes that you pressed the "Ignore" button for her call; the cell phone fairy takes care of it and makes sure that your sister hears a lot of rings before going to voicemail so she doesn't feel neglected. And, if worse comes to worse, the cell phone fairy can magically restore contacts to a new phone if the old one gets, say, dropped into a body of water or run over by a car.

No offense, Tooth Fairy, but once my baby teeth were gone, I was done with you. These fairies can help out in so many ways!

I'm just saying...

Most of the time I am cool with the way that my life has turned out, and, as much as I would like to be married, I can usually be patient until a good person and situation come along. It is only occasionally that I have my moments where I lament my loneliness and wish to be married now. In those situations, sometimes my friends try to comfort me by saying something like, "Don't worry! I didn't get married until I was..." Just to let you know, if you want your statement to be effective, you should probably say a number after that that is greater than my current age. I'm just saying. :)

Communication

An excerpt from a friend's Facebook comment: "... and doesn't it suck that we just write eachother[sic]... I freaking miss phone calls and some old fashioned Café experiences."

As another example, I've seen things like the following on dating sites: "Don't flirt/wink/smile at me. If you don't write me an e-mail/message, I won't respond to you."

Another online dating profile says something like this: "If you are interested, send me a wink/flirt/smile. If I reciprocate, it means that I am interested. Then we can message each other."

Imagine after a first date: "I am so going to dump this guy. He didn't even bother to call me after our date; he just sent me a text to thank me for going out with him."

Or perhaps a husband complains about his wife: "My wife leaves little notes all over the house about things she wants me to do. I wish she would just talk to me instead of putting these notes between us."

It seems that people have strong opinions about the ways we should communicate and which methods of communication are better than others. But I submit that it is not methods of communication which are good or bad, just that people have preferences for modalities of communication that affect the way they communicate with others.

After all, every type of communication has different characteristics. On the phone we can catch people's voice inflections, while face-to-face communication allows us to read the person's lips and body language as well. Some people like to craft well-thought-out letters, while e-mail or instant messaging allows us to communicate more frequently than snail mail. In fact instant messaging is somewhere between synchronous phone and asynchronous e-mail communication. Each "utterance" is crafted as a unit and sent after composition, though both people can be creating their messages at the same time. My guess is that people choose a preferred mode of communication based on its desirable characteristics, but don't often realize that others have preferred modes of communication as well.

I think of it as similar to the five love languages as taught in Chapman's book. Chapman's thesis is that each person has a preferred way of expressing and receiving love, and if others give or expect love in other ways the person may not interpret that as loving. But if we learn to understand each other's love languages, we can both give and receive love in ways that are more meaningful to people we care about. In a similar way, just because others do not have the same preferred method of communication does not make them bad communicators or mean that they are being disrespectful.

This is complicated by the fact that not all methods of communication are reasonably available in all situations. If I am sitting in a meeting and suddenly remember something I want to tell a member of my family, of course I will discreetly send a text message instead of calling attention to myself by excusing myself from the meeting and making a call. I can't hop on an airplane if I want to have a face-to-face communication with a friend on another continent; sometimes a phone call or even an e-mail will have to do, depending on the time difference. But this doesn't mean that I don't care.

How about we cut each other a break?