Sidwell Friends School should not add more languages to its curriculum because they would only allow for a superficial level of knowledge. Courses would not be beneficial to students as they would not have sufficient demand to fill multiple levels. There is no issue with the current system.
While language learning is essential to a well-rounded curriculum, Sidwell does not hold learning new languages to the same level as STEM or English classes. Graduation requirements for English, Science and Math courses are four and three years, respectively, while students are only required to take two years of a language. After fulfilling this requirement, many students drop language classes in their junior or senior year.
Many incoming freshmen fulfill the language requirement by studying the same language they learned in middle school. As such, other languages would not have the demand to fill four levels, an imperative factor for solidly grasping a language. If the graduation requirement were to change so that students would not be required to take two consecutive years, students would be more likely to switch between languages. As a result, the student’s understanding of a language would not be as deep.
Students being able to switch languages freely could also lead to confusion of grammatical concepts, resulting in poorer results in both languages. Combined with the added stress of tests, quizzes and oral assessments, students would be confused by the similar vocabulary and structures of the language families at Sidwell.
True for all languages, it takes a substantial amount of time to reach the level of proficiency that would allow comprehension from someone at a native or near-native level. By keeping the current graduation requirement and number of languages offered small, students are more likely to become close to fluent in their chosen language. The addition of more languages would detrimentally impact students’ understanding of a specific language and culture.
The addition of new languages would also require new teachers and additional resources. Staff recruitment and extra material could take away from the budget of the current languages. With a different budget allocation that includes other languages, experiences such as overnight trips and field trips in general could be reduced. A popular example being the Chinese II overnight field trip to the China Folk House during the second semester.
If Sidwell were to expand language opportunities, a more meaningful approach would be to strengthen the programs that already exist rather than adding new ones. Increasing funding for current language departments could enhance classroom experiences, provide more cultural enrichment and allow all levels to participate in immersive trips and events. These improvements would deepen students’ understanding of both language and culture, creating a stronger connection to what they are learning. In contrast, spreading resources across additional languages would likely weaken the quality of all programs. For students eager to explore other languages beyond what Sidwell offers, many accessible and free online platforms make independent learning possible.
