In discussing this ongoing educational controversy, I will neither dwell on whether it is appropriate to teach English as a foreign language to elementary school students nor try to refute the consensus against it. Rather, I will spell out some facts which opponents of such education might not be aware. This unfavorable stance, first emerging in the 1950swith Michael West, was later echoed in the Arab world by the manager of UNESCO in Beirut, Abdulaziz Al-Gusi.

The first scientific fact is derived from the widely implemented English educational or school program through which students of elementary levels are taught English. The first program is called bilingual education, in which non-English-speaking studentsare taught basic English language skills, while school subjects—math, science, social studies, etc.—are taught in their first language (L1) so that they would not fall behind their English-speaking classmates. Then, once their English proficiency has improved, they are gradually taught such subjects in English only. The second form of English education is called immersion education or “English-only,” also known as the “sink or swim” method. Non-English-speaking students are immediately taught all school subjects in English, disregarding entirely their L1. Thus, students at the elementary level are required to use only English throughout the school day both in class and outside class. The third program is second-language education, in which non-English-speaking students are taught their L1 and then, during some part of the school day, study English.

Opponents of teaching English as a foreign language as a compulsory part of the elementary school curriculum are driven by the underscored adverse impact of introducing English at this early educational stage on the L1, especially with bilingual education. The implanted English educational program in the Arab world at large is regarded as English as a foreign language (FL), in which students study English for no more than four to six hours a week, during which they are exposed to the English language for 45 minutes per class. Such poor acquisition environments as opposed to rich linguistic environments does not lead to successfully acquiring English as a foreign language and most importantly, results in an unnoticeable detrimental influence of the English language on the mother tongue.

Further facts are related to the notion of a critical period for language acquisition. The Critical Period Hypothesis was proposed by biologist Eric Lenneberg in 1967. It is the only period in the childhood years from age 6–14 during which acquiring languages is fully possible, after which the process of learning a foreign language becomes much more difficult and effortful. In more specific terms, the ability to learn a foreign language rapidly deteriorates so that it is very difficult to learn a language to the fullest. This is mainly attributed to neurological considerations or factors, as it has been observed that the flexibility of the language acquisition faculty is not complete. Furthermore, the maturation of cognitive skills does not allow a more effective working out of the regular features of the foreign languages encountered. In other words, after passing the critical period, we can witness a loss of flexibility or openness to receiving the features of a foreign language. The idea of a critical period was also advanced by the Brain Plasticity Hypothesis, introduced by Penfield and Roberts in 1959, which postulates that the optimum period for language acquisition falls within the first ten years of life, as the brain retains its plasticity.

Another major scientific factor is based on two theories proposed by Jim Cummins in 2005, namely the Threshold Hypothesis and the Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis. The expected negative effects can be seen when teaching an FL during the first three years of life because L1 skills are not yet adequately developed. This position is based on the fact that a general course of L1development proceeds through an identifiable sequence of stages during the first five years of life. At the age of four, the child’s syntactic or grammatical competence is completely developed, like semantic knowledge, which is fully developed at the age of five. A child’s lexical knowledge at this age is believed to be about 14,000 words. Furthermore, phonological development is also fully developed by this age. The expected absence of an obvious adverse impact of introducing English in elementary school is traced back to the assumed reciprocal relationships between L1and the FL. A FL depends in part on L1 competence at the time of studying the FL. If a student’s L1 competence is low, competence in the L2 will also be low and vice versa. Cummins formulated this thought further and came up with the notion of additive bilingualism, suggesting that a student can add an FL at no cost to L1. Henceforth, learning a foreign language is conferred an advantage, as it is considered an additional language rather than a replacement for L1. This is simply because a child at the age of five has already developed and completely secured the L1 system and is now capable and ready to absorb or add another FL system, which indeed strengthens and supports the L1 system. In other words, the development of competence in an FL is partially a function of the type of competence already developed for L1. However, this is different in the case of what Cummins called subtractive bilingualism, resulting in an identifiable negative impact of learning an FL. When a child begins learning the FL prior to the third year of life, we expect the complete loss of an FL because a child at that stage of life has not yet attained threshold levels of linguistic competence in his/her own language. Thus, the FL is added or learned at the expense of L1, which diminishes as a consequence.

The above factors are also supported by the results of numerous related studies indicating several advantages to be expected when teaching English in elementary school. There is evidence that students who know English are more creative, develop a deeper understanding of cultures, show stronger skills in their own native language, and generally do better in problem-solving and overall academic performance. Those who study a foreign language tend to demonstrate greater cognitive development and divergent thinking than monolingual children. Additionally, students who are competent in more than one language generally outscore those who are speakers of only one language. They also develop enhanced abilities in reading, writing, and mathematics and can grasp linguistic concepts—such as words having several meanings—faster and sooner than their monolingual counterparts.
These are scientific factors that we all—from decision-makers within a family to education policy-makers and state authorities—need to take into account to reinstate English language education as a part of the primary school curriculum, as it will raise the standard of education at this stage by equipping students with the necessary skills needed to power their nation's development and, most importantly, refute the commonly held fear that it will definitely be detrimental to mother tongue language educational efforts.

Khalid Al Seghayer earned his Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from the University of Pittsburgh in 2003. His research interests include Computer-Assisted Language Learning and second language reading. He has taught English in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States of America. Over the years, he has taught a wide range of language-related subjects. His work has been published in TESOL Quarterly, Language Learning and Technology, CALL Journal, Internet TESL Journal, CALICO Journal, and CALL-EJ Online. His recent books are English Teaching in Saudi Arabia: Status, Issues, and Challenges and Various Thoughts Concerning Teaching and Learning English. He served as the chair-elect (2002-2003) of the EFL Interest Section in TESOL, the editor of the NNEST Newsletter in TESOL (2002-2004), the chair-elect of the Non-Native English Speakers (NNEST) in TESOL (2003-2004), and the editor of the CALL Media Software of Reading Matrix Journal (2003-2007). He has been the chair of the English Department at Imam University and is currently serving as an editorial board member and a reviewer for a number of journals, including Reading Matrix, TESOL Journal, CALICO Journal, Foreign Language Annuals Journal, Arab World English Journal, CALL Journal, IJCALLT Journal, and the International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature.