Lasting Change in Foreign Language Education: A Historical Case for Change in National Policy (Contemporary Language Education)

cover

next page >

Cover

title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc: subject:

Lasting Change in Foreign Language Education : A Historical Case for Change in National Policy Contemporary Language Education Watzke, John L. Greenwood Publishing Group 0897898001 9780897898003 9780313053115 English Language and languages--Study and teaching--United States--History, Language policy--United States. 2003 P57.U5W38 2003eb 407/.1073 Language and languages--Study and teaching--United States--History, Language policy--United States.

cover

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page >

Page i LASTING CHANGE IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION

< previous page

page_i

next page >

< previous page

page_ii

next page >

Page ii Recent Titles in Contemporary Language Education Terry A. Osborn, Series Adviser Foreign Language Program Articulations: Current Practice and Future Prospects Carolyn Gascoigne Lally, editor The Future of Foreign Language Education in the United States Terry A. Osborn, editor

< previous page

page_ii

next page >

< previous page

page_iii

next page >

Page iii LASTING CHANGE IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION A HISTORICAL CASE FOR CHANGE IN NATIONAL POLICY John L. Watzke Contemporary Language Education Terry A. Osborn, Series Adviser

< previous page

page_iii

next page >

< previous page

page_iv

next page >

Page iv Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Watzke, John L. Lasting change in foreign language education: a historical case for change in national policy / John L. Watzke. p. cm.—(Contemporary language education ISSN 1531–1449) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–89789–800–1 1. Language and languages—Study and teaching—United States—History. 2. Language policy—United States. I. Title. II. Series. P57.U5 W38 2003 407'.1073—dc21 2002067939 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2003 by John L. Watzke All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2002067939 ISBN: 0-89789-800-1 ISSN: 1531–1449 First published in 2003 Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.praeger.com Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

< previous page

page_iv

next page >

< previous page

page_v

next page >

page_v

next page >

Page v To Lisa and Bela In memory of James Alexander Watzke

< previous page

< previous page

page_vi

next page >

page_vi

next page >

Page vi This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_vii

next page >

Page vii Contents

Acknowledgments Preface Abbreviations Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6

ix xi xix

Roots of Foreign Language in the Curriculum: Precolonial America through the Rise of Secondary Education Formalizing the Secondary-to-College Transition: Education Reform at the Turn of the Century Opportunities Lost in Foreign Language: The Progressive Transformation of Public Secondary Education World War II and the Cold War: The Fall and Rise of Foreign Language, Part I

1 9 23 39

Equality in Education and the Global Economy: The Fall and Rise of Foreign Language, Part 53 II Standards for the 21st Century: Historic Growth in Contemporary Education Reform 69

< previous page

page_vii

next page >

< previous page

page_viii

next page >

Page viii Chapter Lasting Change in Foreign Language: Historical Trends, Contemporary Approaches, and 7 Education Policy

Introduction to Appendices Appendix Percentage of Public High School Students, Grades 9–12, Enrolled in Foreign Language A Study: 1889–2000 Appendix Percentage of Populations Enrolled by Traditional and Alternative Enrollment Definitions: B 1889–2000 Appendix Enrollments and Percentage of Public High School Students Enrolled in Foreign Languages C Other Than French, Latin, German, and Spanish: 1889–2000 Appendix Enrollments in Public High School, Grades 9–12, in Latin, Modern Languages (French, D German, and Spanish), and Other Languages: 1889–2000 Appendix Enrollments by Level in Public High Schools: 1905–2000 E Appendix Percentage of Total Public High School Population Enrolled in Specified Courses by F Subject Area: 1890–1982 Appendix Comparison of Foreign Language Mandates by Level, Type, and State G Bibliography Index

< previous page

page_viii

99 133 139 149 157 175 181 189 195 199 211

next page >

< previous page

page_ix

next page >

Page ix Acknowledgments The list of those who assisted me in producing this text could never be complete. Family inspired and encouraged me in many ways. The many students, teachers, and colleagues of foreign language education contributed much to this project. Educational researchers, theorists, and historians from past and current generations have had an impact on this work. I would like to thank Michael Everson and Leslie Schrier for their earliest encouragement as I initially prepared for teacher certification and upon my return to graduate studies where the premise for this book was cultivated. I want to thank Kathy Heilenman, Peter Hlebowitsch, and Carolyn Colvin of the University of Iowa for their input and reading of early drafts. My colleagues at the University of Notre Dame have been instrumental in providing support as this work continued. Marcia Goldstein and Alan Harris have been helpful in navigating the particulars of publication. My immediate and extended family provided professional and personal encouragement that can never be completely recognized in the unconditional way it was offered to me.

< previous page

page_ix

next page >

< previous page

page_x

next page >

page_x

next page >

Page x This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_xi

next page >

Page xi Preface Lasting change in K–12 foreign language education results when historical precedence and the greater mission of general education are addressed in the development of education policy and its transformation into practice. This book presents the century-long struggle of foreign language to realign itself with the changing mission of general education. This book also presents a threefold approach to the historical case for change in education policy. First, an account of foreign language in general education over the past century identifies persistent trends affecting reform. This account contributes to an understanding of problems associated with the translation of reform goals into educational practice. Second, concise data summaries and selected education documents describe the historic process of change over time. These artifacts provide a large body of data for discussion of the evolving mission of foreign language in education. Third, we present policy implications within the context of historical trends and contemporary standards-based initiatives in states and school districts. This approach presents history as a broader context for the development of policy to effect change in the contemporary education system. Lasting change is elusive. Historian Larry Cuban associates two general traits with reforms that have been initiated and have continued to shape education (O’Neil, 2000, p.7). First, such initiatives have a broad base of constituencies who rally around the proposed change. Second, these initiatives are based on social concerns for supporting democracy, for providing equity in education, and for preparing students to benefit from and contribute to society through educational experiences related to democracy and equity.

< previous page

page_xi

next page >

< previous page

page_xii

next page >

Page xii Examples throughout history include the establishment of kindergartens, of the comprehensive public high school, Title I funding for elementary and secondary education, and support for special education (O’Neil, p. 7). The history of foreign language education provides fewer definitive examples. The proficiency movement in assessment practices and communicative approaches in pedagogy represent more recent reform agendas that have impacted the teaching and learning of languages. Other examples include unplanned or unintended change associated with greater reform initiatives in general education. The replacement of classical languages with modern languages in the curricula of schools and higher education, for example, was the byproduct of an expanded general and technical mission in education to enroll more students in programs to meet the emergent needs of American society. Despite fewer instances of planned change, six general trends have persisted over the past century to influence the place and purpose of foreign language in education. First is the reduced role of this subject in programs of study that are designed for all students. The historical record shows distinct curricular differences between a general education for all students and one for leadership and higher education. The place and purpose of foreign language has been reduced, and often eliminated, in the curriculum formed under a general education mission. The second trend is the resistance of this subject to structural change in the form of courses that serve different functions in various curricula. This resistance is most evident during periods of general education reform that serve to expand course offerings. Third, the loss of enrollment unique to the subject of foreign language has resulted during periods of curricular expansion and differentiation of subject disciplines. These losses serve to emphasize the resistance to change. Fourth, the study of foreign language has remained primarily a beginning-level endeavor for the majority of students over the past century. This trend results in significant pressure on the beginning-level curriculum, particularly during periods of reform, to provide multiple academic outcomes in education. Fifth, there is a trend over time for one language to dominate and influence how foreign language contributes to the general curriculum. The transition from Latin to Spanish as the primary language of study reflects the agendas of various reform periods and carries with it implications for this subject in the curriculum. The final trend is one of increased ability of the educational system to provide learning opportunities for all students to formally study foreign language as the mission of general education has steadily grown and changed over time. This result is most significant in relation to periods of education reform. The end of the 1990s marked historic highs in foreign language enrollments, both in terms of the percentage of students enrolled and the raw numbers of students in classrooms. Contemporary reform initiatives in foreign language education have the added benefit of a mass presence in the

< previous page

page_xii

next page >

< previous page

page_xiii

next page >

Page xiii curriculum that no prior period has equaled. These trends represent long-term issues in the integration of foreign language into general education and foreshadow new approaches to contemporary reform in the United States. A tendency for the foreign language profession to look inward to reform, rather than outward to its place and purpose in general education, has also affected planned and lasting change. This situation has not been the case in other subject disciplines, however, which have a foundational and continued history in the education of all students. In a 1953 commencement address at Middlebury College, then Executive Secretary of the Modern Language Association, William Riley Parker, emphasized the need for reform to reach a broad educational perspective. In his address, he spoke of America’s “language curtain” (a reference playing off the term “iron curtain” surrounding communist countries of Cold War Europe)—a vision of foreign language education serving children through adults much as in other subjects: Foreign language teachers cannot alone succeed in lifting America’s Language Curtain. They can and will facilitate the process by bringing their methods and objectives up to date; but no change will come about until those who actually determine the course of American education are convinced that a change is overdue. (Hancock and Scebold, 1999, pp. 2–3) Parker’s message is clear. The profession can facilitate the expansion of opportunities to learn a foreign language. Change, however, must ultimately come through general reform in education that benefits foreign language learning. FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN GENERAL EDUCATION REFORM: POLICY AND PRACTICES In 1994, Congress passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, capping several years of federal and state initiatives to establish goals and standards to reform education. This legislation called for all K–12 students to achieve high standards in various school subjects and outlined improvements to be made in the education system to facilitate the achievement of these standards. As one of nine subjects designated in this federal legislation, foreign language is part of a national initiative to develop high educational standards for all students. Although these goals specify an education in foreign language for all students that spans the K–12 system, the process of translating these goals to the state and school district levels does not guarantee this result. The development of standards in foreign language at the national, state, and school district levels has focused on content and performance standards. These standards help define what students should learn and the level of proficiency at which they should acquire this content, essentially affecting the “methods and objectives” referred to by Parker. These standards do not

< previous page

page_xiii

next page >

< previous page

page_xiv

next page >

Page xiv address the educational policy, resources, and implementation of change necessary to clear the way for national K–12 foreign language education, however. Ongoing study and discussion in foreign language professional literature has focused on the many problems related to the development and implementation of content and performance standards: research, theories, practices (Phillips and Terry, 1999), articulation (Lange, 1997), assessment (Chalhoub-Deville, 1997), curriculum development, and alignment (Rhodes and Branaman, 1999, pp. 59–63). Missing from this literature is a detailed discussion and plan for development of educational policy that will provide the opportunity for all students to achieve these standards in an extended learning sequence. Opportunity-to-learn standards—those that provide the necessary policy to secure time and resources for education reform—are not developed by the professions of each subject discipline. Rather, such standards are a product of national, state, and local educational policy development that can be influenced by constituencies in education, the government, and the public at large. Where, when, and for how long students study foreign language in our schools has been shaped by this process and the historical balance between opportunities to learn certain subjects and the goals of general education. This book explores the 100-year history of foreign language in education during major periods of reform. It is based on historical change in educational policy and practices. Educational policy refers to what Tyack and Cuban term “policy talk and action”—problems and solutions in the professional literature, in reform documents, in the media, and public discussion and debate on education (Tyack and Cuban, 1995, p. 40). Educational practices refers to Tyack and Cuban’s term “policy implementation”— the often slow process of achieving reform, seeing results, and measuring success (Tyack and Cuban, p. 40). This history will highlight the persistent trends that have influenced and shaped the present education system and that have implications for reform initiatives. PROBLEM OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT The history of foreign language education is rarely presented as part of a greater history of United States education (Bernhardt, 1999, p. 39). Attempts have been made to link socio-historical events to developments in education affecting foreign language (Bernhardt). The diminished importance of foreign language in the curriculum of schools during the years of the depression and the collapse of German language study as a result of World War II and are commonly cited in the professional literature as examples. This approach, while attractive for its broad applications of general chronological and societal events to specific occurrences in the history of education, shifts the focus away from the process of policy development and educa-

< previous page

page_xiv

next page >

< previous page

page_xv

next page >

Page xv tional practice. This book draws from socio-historical events as a backdrop to an approach with the primary focus on policy debates, formulation, and implementation resulting in educational practice throughout history. This perspective serves to highlight concrete solutions to emerging challenges in education, particularly for contemporary reform. Ultimately, the historical focus on educational policy and practice emphasizes the responsibility of the foreign language profession to be proactive in its response to socio-historical events, rather than to be resigned to the view that they determine change in education. Prominent examples, such as the Depression and the effect of the World Wars, take on greater significance from a policy and practice perspective as opportunities for growth in the study of foreign languages and a reformulation of the place and purpose of language study in the curriculum of schools. The lack of historical context in the professional literature has often led to inaccurate predictions and limited descriptions of the purpose of foreign language in education. Writing on the future of education in the United States in the 1923 book Methods of Teaching Modern Languages, Charles Handschin predicted, “If time shall show the wisdom of less compulsion for foreign languages, then surely a compensating change will occur, namely: less students of modern languages, but more modern language for the students” (p. 343). Similarly, the NEA’s 1962 report The Scholars Look at Schools made predictions of the functional importance and necessity of foreign languages that are still anticipated more than 30 years later. “By 1980 anyone who speaks only two languages will be ill-equipped to cope with situations that will confront him daily. We no longer will live a monolingually isolated life. Our world role will make increasing demands, which we are now only beginning to meet” (Project on Instruction, 1962, p. 15 cited in Tanner, 1971, p. 274). The 1999 National Standards for Foreign Language Learning confirm the inaccuracy of these predictions and the reality of the present problem: increasingly more students study foreign languages than in previous decades, but in a limited, two-year sequence. Although the standards document predicts that the high school “soon…will be primarily for students who want to learn their third or fourth language” (National Standards, 1999, p. 21), it points out the shortcomings of the current situation. “The present patchwork quilt of American foreign language curriculum comes in all shapes and sizes. By far, the most common practice is for schools to introduce foreign language study to ninth graders, and the majority of adolescents enroll for a two-year sequence” (National Standards, 1999, p. 17). The present educational system is the product of more than a century of development in this country. A historical perspective informs not only those who make predictions but also places policy development within the context of events that have influenced or contributed to the problem that reform is to address. This perspective offers the potential to learn from these events to

< previous page

page_xv

next page >

< previous page

page_xvi

next page >

Page xvi effectively achieve change. In language education, this process is commonly referred to as “language planning,” defined as the study and development of “laws and regulations [language policy], change rules, beliefs, and practices intended to achieve a planned change [or to stop change from happening] in the language use of one or more communities” (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997, p. 3). In the case of foreign language education, an understanding of its purpose within the mission of education provides a comparison of past policies, their effect on foreign language education, and the potential for resultant change from current policies. This historical context defines foreign language planning within the greater context of education, rather than within or by the foreign language profession. That is, the profession can define what it means to know and study a foreign language, but its purpose or value in the curriculum and the extent to which students will study foreign languages is determined by the greater mission of general education. Kaplan and Baldauf suggest that “the roots of many problems in language planning lie in the role and historical development of language usage in a particular polity or location” (1997, p. 8). Historical context in the study of the problem of change in language planning provides numerous informative insights: • An understanding of why a problem has existed in the past and/or present and future trends [or predictions] associated with the problem • A better understanding of the interaction between language and other cultural elements [such as schools and society] over time • An indication of the basis and nature of some of the assumptions which underlie the problem • A re-evaluation of data in relation to specific hypotheses and assumptions • A documentary evaluation of language planning or language change which has occurred over time (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997, pp. 8–9) This book will provide precisely these insights as it presents a review of the history of foreign language in general education curriculum reform. This review will serve to inform current efforts to achieve change in the education system by establishing the persistence of trends that will influence reform efforts. FOCUS ON SECONDARY EDUCATION REFORM The primary focus of this historical review will be on change in the curriculum of public secondary education. There are several reasons for this focus. The public high school stands as the single institution where the majority of U.S. citizens begin and end the formal study of a foreign language (see Chapters 2 and 7 for a detailed discussion of this point). This sit-

< previous page

page_xvi

next page >

< previous page

page_xvii

next page >

Page xvii uation has been the case since the earliest foundations of secondary education to the emergence and later dominance of publicly funded high schools over private schools at the turn of the past century. Foreign language was of primary importance in the curriculum of secondary education more than 100 years ago. The availability of historical documents and data related to secondary education over the past century contributes to an account detailing educational policy and practice in the institution where the vast majority of foreign language education continues to take place. Because the establishment and emergence of a system of public common and elementary schools predates that of the high school, foreign language enrollments in public education were first recorded at the elementary school level. Andersson (1969, pp. 57–65) provides a liberal estimate of annual FLES enrollments of more than 110,000 from 1840 to 1919. By 1900, however, the growing number of public high schools enrolled over 400,000 students in foreign languages annually (U.S. Office of Education, 1902, p. 1905). During this same year, 82 percent of all secondary school students were enrolled in public schools, attesting to the dominance of the public high school in foreign language education (United States Department of Commerce, 1975, Table H, pp. 412–432). For the past century, enrollments in foreign language study in public high schools have outnumbered those at all other levels of education (kindergarten through college combined). In terms of curriculum, early forms of secondary education served to prepare students for higher education. It might surprise many that the development of secondary schools followed the establishment of colleges. The following chapters will identify foreign language as the central academic discipline for the preparation of secondary school students for higher education from pre-colonial America until the early 1900s. From college preparation in early Latin grammar schools through shortlived academies to the growth and spread of early public high schools, foreign language represents the earliest and most traditional curricular link between the pre-college and college level. Recognizing the early contribution of the elementary school to the teaching of foreign languages, the historical review will focus on the emergence of the public high school as the dominant, compulsory, and comprehensive institution educating Americans in foreign languages. CONCLUSION This book re-examines events that have shaped the current educational system and that have affected foreign language in general education. This work presents an extensive review and interpretation of historical documents and data in light of the challenge of contemporary education reform to increase the competence in a second language of all Americans. Such a challenge is not new to the history of education reform. The ways in which reform has been formulated and put into practice over the past century rep-

< previous page

page_xvii

next page >

< previous page

page_xviii

next page >

Page xviii resent a collective experience to inform efforts to effect lasting results. Shaped by this history, the place and purpose of foreign language in education will carry this influence forward as new initiatives are brought to the reform agenda and integrated into general education reform.

< previous page

page_xviii

next page >

< previous page

page_xix

next page >

Page xix Abbreviations AATF American Association of Teachers of French AATG American Association of Teachers of German AATSP American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese ACCML American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages ACTFL American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages ASL American Sign Language CAL Center for Applied Linguistics CAM Certificate of Advanced Mastery CASE Chicago Academic Standards Exams CIM Certificate of Initial Mastery CPS Chicago Public Schools CRSE Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education CSR Center for the Study of Reading ESL English as a Second Language ESPA Elementary School Proficiency Assessment FLES Foreign language at the elementary school level

< previous page

page_xix

next page >

< previous page Page xx FLEX FSI GEPA HSPA ISAT K-12 K-16 LOTE MCAS MLA NAEP NESIC NCES NCEE NCSSFL NCTM NDEA NEA NESIC NSFLP OBE OPI OTL OUS PASS PCFLIS PSAE SES

page_xx

next page >

Exploratory foreign language at the elementary school level Foreign Service Institute Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment High School Proficiency Assessment Illinois Standards Achievement Tests Kindergarten through twelfth grade Kindergarten through undergraduate college Languages other than English Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System Modern Language Association National Assessment of Educational Progress National Education Standards and Improvement Council National Center for Education Statistics National Commission on Excellence in Education National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages National Council of Teachers of Mathematics National Defense Education Act National Education Association National Education Standards and Improvement Council National Standards in Foreign Language Project Outcomes-Based Education Oral Proficiency Interview Opportunity-to-learn Oregon University System Proficiency-based Admission Standards System President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies Prairie State Achievement Examination Socioeconomic status

< previous page

page_xx

next page >

< previous page

page_1

next page >

Page 1 1 Roots of Foreign Language in the Curriculum: Precolonial America through the Rise of Secondary Education Foreign languages were taught in formal and informal settings in precolonial America. As early as 1608, French and Spanish missionaries taught their native languages in settlements in the north, in Florida, and in California. German was taught primarily in areas that would form the middle colonies of America (Cole, 1931, p. 1; Gullette, Keating, and Viens, 1942, p. 1). The instruction of modern languages took place primarily at the elementary school level, where they were the medium for the instruction of other subjects and prepared students for social and vocational life. Classical languages (Greek and Latin) were taught as subjects for the preparation of students for entrance into higher education, often in formal tutorial or school settings. The distinction of instruction of modern languages for vocation and societal needs and classical languages for higher education and leadership persisted until well into the 19th century (Childers, 1964, p. 1). This difference in purpose is reflected through three traditional transitional periods leading to the establishment of universal public secondary education: the Latin grammar school, the academy, and the public high school (Inglis, 1918, p. 161). This preliminary history describes the events that would lead to a formalized purpose for foreign language in the curriculum of the earliest secondary schools. THE LATIN GRAMMAR SCHOOL The Latin grammar school represented formal college preparatory education in colonial America. Originating in Charles City, Virginia territory and Boston in approximately 1635, the first Latin grammar schools were established with

< previous page

page_1

next page >

< previous page

page_2

next page >

Page 2 the narrow focus of the preparation of boys seven to nine years of age for study at Harvard (established in 1636) and other early colleges (Inglis, 1918, p. 162). These schools were exclusive to children of upper-class families. As an early form of secondary education, the curriculum of the Latin grammar school was distinguished by the presence of foreign language study. Courses consisted primarily of Greek and Latin as preparation for the ministry and positions of leadership that would come upon graduation from college. College entrance requirements determined this curriculum. The entrance requirements for Harvard College in 1642 serve as an example of the fundamental place and purpose of foreign language in the curriculum of the Latin grammar school. When any Scholar is able to understand Tully, or such like classicall Latine Author extempore, and make and speake true Latine in Verse and Prose, suo ut aiunt Marte , And decline perfectly the Paradigm’s of Nounes and Verbs in the Greek tongue: Let him then and not before be capable of admission into the College. (Willis et al., 1993, p. 10) Although the Latin grammar school is considered an early form of secondary education, its structure overlapped with early forms of formal elementary education, such as the New England town school. Both schools drew from roughly the same age range, and neither one was preceded by formal schooling (Popham, 1969, p. 125; Douglass, 1952, p. 23). Town schools served as a general education equivalent to Latin grammar schools. They enrolled students from a broader age range (from 5 to 14 years of age) and societal class in providing an elementary education consisting of religion, literacy, and arithmetic (Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 158). The purpose of foreign language in the curriculum of these two schools highlights a distinction that is important to the historical development of secondary education. When instruction in modern languages took place in town schools, it reflected the ethnic makeup of the community and often was the medium of daily instruction, serving a social and vocational purpose. In the earliest beginnings, the curriculum of these two institutions distinguished between the formal study of foreign language for the purpose of college preparation and a more pragmatic form of study for social and vocational needs. The burden of educating youth in early colonial America was placed primarily on individual families (Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 155). Latin grammar schools were generally referred to as “public” because of their establishment by the town or local legislation. Although public land was typically designated for these schools, tuition fees and endowments predominantly provided monetary support. Control of these schools was often in the hands of a private board of trustees (Inglis, 1918, p. 162). Latin grammar schools, by law, were established according to town or county population levels, not by actual student demand. This situation led to documented instances in some localities in which more schools existed than did the number of boys

< previous page

page_2

next page >

< previous page

page_3

next page >

Page 3 entering colleges in a given year. Towns increasingly began to ignore laws for the establishment of Latin grammar schools while the enforcement of these laws by governments relaxed (Inglis, 1918, pp. 65– 70). Latin grammar schools provided a classical education primarily for college preparation and town schools provided a basic elementary education. No formal public institution existed, however, that offered a general secondary education. Families seeking alternative post-elementary studies for their children were forced to find other avenues for schooling (such as tutors and apprenticeships). Even in the early and middle 1800s, as Latin grammar schools expanded their curricular offerings and the number of years of compulsory attendance to compete with a growing form of secondary education, the academy, secondary education remained an option for few United States citizens. A common school movement that called for universal publicly funded elementary education during this period contrasted with the narrow approach of the Latin grammar school. As represented in the writings of Horace Mann and Henry Bernard (Willis et al., 1993, pp. 39–52), the curriculum of the common school stressed as basic subjects for all children those relating to reading, writing, and arithmetic within a program of civic education. A formalized system of secondary education was slowly being formed as the curriculum expanded to include elements of both college preparation and vocational interests. THE ACADEMY Private academies were first established in 1742 to teach commercial trades and skills needed in the colony of New York. During the period 1770 to 1870, extensive growth of private and semi-private academies provided secondary education for those students who studied beyond the common school (Popham, 1969, p. 128). The education provided by academies reflected a contemporary and social link between secondary education, changes in the sciences, and the skills necessary for new types of employment (Inglis, 1918, pp. 170–172 and pp. 175–178, 182). The concept of a secondary school that could meet both the vocational and college preparatory needs of society spread throughout the colonies and eventually throughout the states. By 1850, the number of academies in the United States educating both elementary and secondary school students is estimated to have numbered more than 6,000 (Inglis, 1918, p. 175).1 Within the curriculum of the academy, foreign language study was introduced into a formal educational setting for purposes beyond college preparation and leadership. Two departments delivered instruction in the typical academy—classical and English. The classical department commonly taught subjects associated with the traditional Latin grammar school and included basic courses in rhetoric, ancient history, English, and mathematics in a four-year course of study. The English department commonly taught courses in

< previous page

page_3

next page >

< previous page

page_4

next page >

Page 4 modern science and mathematics, modern languages, modern and ancient history, surveying and navigation, philosophy, and logic in a three-year course of study (Kandel, 1930, p. 399; Popham, 1969, p. 128). The practical education offered by the academy included the pragmatic study of foreign language. Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 proposal for the curriculum of an academy based on social usefulness and student choice helped shape the curriculum of future public secondary education (Willis et al., 1993, p. 18). In his proposal, he wrote of foreign language study: All intended for divinity should be taught the Latin and Greek; for physic, Latin, Greek and French; for lay, the Latin and French; merchants, the French, German and Spanish; and though all should not be compelled to learn Latin, Greek, or the modern foreign languages, yet none that have an ardent desire to learn them should be refused; their English, arithmetic, and other studies absolutely necessary being at the same time not neglected. (Willis et al., 1993, pp. 22–23) Early academies successfully competed with Latin grammar schools by offering broader curricular offerings. Surveys of courses in these academies ranged from 67 to 115 individual courses in the state of New York alone (Douglass, 1952, pp. 20–21; Kandel, 1930, p. 405). The distinction between the study of classical languages for college preparation and modern study for vocation formalized competing purposes within the emerging subject discipline of foreign language. Students who were to pursue a career in commerce, trade, or in other skilled occupations studied modern languages according to their needs or the modern languages offered by the particular academy (often reflecting the ethnicity of the local community) (Cole, 1931, pp. 2–3). Despite its growth in popularity, the academy was limited in the extent to which it could respond to further changes in the social demands on education. Four major weaknesses are attributed to the system of academies (Inglis, 1918, p. 183; Dexter, 1922, pp. 97–98). First, the academies were privately or denominationally controlled. This scenario contradicted a growing interest for public and universal secondary education similar to the common school movement and eventual formalization of a system of public elementary schools. Second, most academies were not organized within a state system and were without standards. Their quality and reputation varied widely. Third, the academy did popularize secondary education, but it did not democratize it. The burden of tuition in most cases fell on individual parents, not the public. Their location, too, was not dependent on public need or convenience. Many served as boarding schools rather than community schools. Finally, although the academies brought innovation to the curriculum and support for secondary education, they also served as an early impediment to the development of a more comprehensive public secondary education.

< previous page

page_4

next page >

< previous page

page_5

next page >

Page 5 By 1850, academies were increasingly preparing students for a growing number of colleges and universities. Latin, and to a lesser extent modern languages, remained a fundamental requirement for college entrance as did requirements in math, science, and history (Douglass, 1952, p. 21). That Franklin’s vision of secondary education as useful and purposeful was not fulfilled to his satisfaction in the Philadelphia Academy, which he had worked to establish, is indicative of the traditional college preparatory function that academies eventually came to serve. Upon his return from Europe after an absence of several years, Franklin found that the English, or practical, course of study was underfunded, understaffed, and all but defunct.2 A report that Franklin wrote to the school board read: From the beginning, the contempt of your employees for the new, the English, course has been allowed to damage it. They get you to give the Latin master a title. You gave none to the English principal. To the Latin head you gave 200 pounds; to the English, one half as much money and twice as many boys. You voted 100 pounds to buy Greek and Latin books, nothing for English. I flatter myself, gentlemen, that from the board minutes it appears that the original plan has been departed from; that the subscribers have been deceived and disappointed, that good masters have been driven out of the school and that the trustees have not kept the faith. (Douglass, 1952, p. 19) Although the academy was the predominant secondary school institution of the middle 1800s, it represented an era when fewer than 6 percent of all adolescents were served by secondary education (U.S. Department of Education, 2000, Table 57). Academies established in the 1800s that still exist today, such as Andover, Exeter, and Phillips in Massachusetts, have exclusively retained a college preparatory mission. The public high school would emerge to provide a system of education capable of enrolling all youth. The Public High School Since the establishment of the first public high school, secondary education in the United States has witnessed three major transitions: from private to predominantly public education, from a small percentage of select adolescents enrolled to the majority of adolescents, and from a curriculum focused on college preparation to one reflecting both the post-secondary academic and vocational needs of society. The decades from 1821 to 1870 represent the establishment and early growth of public high schools as local and state laws first provided funding for public secondary school education. Most notably, state supreme court decisions in Iowa and Illinois (1859), Maine (1871), Michigan (1874), Wisconsin (1875), and Minnesota (1878) established legal precedents for publicly funded high schools in a model similar to elementary education (Inglis, 1918, pp. 199–200; Popham, 1969, pp. 140–141).

< previous page

page_5

next page >

< previous page

page_6

next page >

Page 6 The programs of study during this period of initial growth typically lasted three years (Douglass, 1952, p. 24). There was little uniformity among these schools’ curricula, although typical course offerings included classical and modern languages, mathematics, science, history and geography, English and rhetoric, civics, and home economics (Popham, 1969, p. 141). The purpose of these early high schools was to offer a more practical education. Henry Barnard defined the curriculum of the public high school in 1853 as one that prepares students for life: By a public or common high school, is intended a public or common school for the older and more advanced scholars of the community in which the same is located, in a course of instruction adapted to their age, and intellectual and moral wants, and, to some extent, to their future pursuits in life. (Kandel, 1930, p. 441) The English Classical School, eventually known as the English High School, of Boston, established in 1821, is credited as the first free public high school. The school’s founders described its mission as one to enroll “young men of the city who are not intended for a college course” in a three-year course of study that “fit them for active life or qualif[ied] them for eminence in private or public station” (Inglis, 1918, p. 186). Its standard curriculum of 1852 included three years of a first modern language and two years of a second. From 1870 to 1890, the growth in the number of public high schools overtook that of the academy. Many academies were absorbed into the public education system, several were transformed into universities, and some remained private college preparatory schools while others closed because of a lack of support (Inglis, 1918, p. 184). As with the academy, pressure on the public high school to fulfill a college-preparatory function remained intense. Change in higher education resulted in the expansion of the high school curriculum within subject disciplines (Douglass, 1952, p. 38). As early as the 1850s, colleges and universities increasingly began offering degrees in the sciences and advanced professional degrees as alternatives to the traditional B.A.: engineering, medicine, and business. The rise of technical and land-grant universities, established by the Morrill Act of 1862, also contributed to the need for high school graduates with a greater knowledge of vocational, practical, technical, and scientific skills. This change influenced high schools in the alignment of their curricula to prepare for college entrance in these degree programs (Kandel, 1930, p. 457). The curricular result was a growth in the course and subject offerings in high schools attributed to, but not limited by, higher education (Kandel, 1930, pp. 460–461). As the number of high schools increased, the student population enrolled in public secondary education became more diverse. During its early developmental period, high school enrollments still predominately drew from the upper and middle classes (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 175). Compulsory attendance laws, urbanization, industrialization, and continued immigration gradually changed this situation. From 1860 to 1890, school attendance

< previous page

page_6

next page >

< previous page

page_7

next page >

Page 7 rates for 5- to 19-year-olds increased 49 percent (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, pp. 164–165). The curriculum of public high schools during these decades was also organized and adapted to local conditions and needs. Increased urbanization prompted cities to create centralized school administrative bureaucracies that were better able to institute educational policy: more vocational and work-related skills courses, goals for democratizing students from different socioeconomic classes and ethnic groups, and continuation of intellectual and college preparatory programs of study (Inglis, 1918, pp. 357–360; Urban and Wagoner, 1996, pp. 169–170). The typical course of study in high schools grew to four years with curricular expansion (Douglass, 1952, p. 24). Like the academies, early high schools benefited from state land grants and funding. Their growth was sustained through legislation in states mandating public financial support of secondary education, however (Inglis, 1918, pp. 199–200; Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 180), and the participation of the public in overseeing their control (Popham, 1969, p. 140). By 1890, 68.1 percent of all secondary school students enrolled in public rather than private schools. By 1920, this percentage had risen 91.1 percent, where it has remained relatively stable to the present (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975, pp. 368– 369). The emerging comprehensive school system was increasingly viewed as a necessary socializing agent for society and as the means for a less homogenous student population to continue into higher education. Many traditional subjects, such as foreign language, would be challenged as absolute prerequisites for life after graduation and continued study in post-secondary institutions (Herron, 1982, p. 444). CONCLUSION By the middle 1800s, secondary education had undergone the rise and decline of two institutions—the Latin grammar school and the academy. Foreign language was an integral part of the college preparatory curriculum of both of these institutions. As public secondary education overtook private in the form of the public high school, the mission of the emerging educational system was increasingly focused on social cohesion and preparation for life. The status of foreign language in the changing curriculum remained strong. Although as few as one-third of public high school graduates enrolled in colleges and universities by 1890 (Krug, 1962), the study of classical and modern languages remained a fundamental subject in the curriculum of secondary education. NOTES 1. This estimate, based on Inglis (1918, p. 175), includes institutions that encompassed elementary schooling, elementary schools calling themselves “academies,” and other schools that

< previous page

page_7

next page >

< previous page

page_8

next page >

Page 8 might have adopted this name but varied widely in the curriculum that they offered. Inglis notes that while this number is an overestimate, it testifies to the growing popularity of the academy as an educational institution. 2. In a final twist of fate, the Philadelphia Academy, in which Franklin worked to establish an English department dedicated to a practical education, was transformed into the University of Pennsylvania in 1779 (Dexter, 1922, p. 90; Uhl, 1927, p. 155).

< previous page

page_8

next page >

< previous page

page_9

next page >

Page 9 2 Formalizing the Secondary-to-College Transition: Education Reform at the Turn of the Century Expansion of public secondary education towards the end of the 19th century initiated gradual changes in the curriculum. First, the establishment of laws that allowed taxation for public secondary education and compulsory secondary school attendance increased enrollments and the demands for a curriculum that served a greater diversity of post-secondary and vocational needs. Second, the interest and influence of state governments in this legislation led to demands for oversight in school standards, local funding plans, organization, and the curriculum. Third, the establishment of land-grant universities and a broadening of post-secondary programs of study created the need for secondary school education that focused on the sciences and technical knowledge. Finally, as the number of colleges and universities continued to increase, there was a growing demand for high schools to provide a uniform college preparatory education. Despite continuing to enroll a small proportion of the adolescent population by the 1890s, the curricula of high schools showed an increasing variation in course offerings. Some offered more vocational and technical courses of study. Others were strictly college preparatory. Many colleges offered their own preparatory programs and directly competed with high schools for the same students. Krug (1964, p. 124) cites a study in the Educational Review in 1893, for example, that characterized as many as half of colleges and universities surveyed as “secondary schools giving more or less instruction of collegiate grade.” In 1892, the National Education Association (NEA) appointed a group consisting of 10 separate committees to study the problem of national standardization of the high school curriculum. The resultant Committee of Ten report of 1893 represents the beginning of a national consensus on secondary educa-

< previous page

page_9

next page >

< previous page

page_10

next page >

Page 10 tion and the influence of professional curriculum planning at a time when lay boards of education determined course offerings (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 9). The committee’s recommendations reflect the strong footing that foreign language held in the curriculum and the continued role that early secondary education played in a primary mission to prepare adolescents for leadership and higher education. CURRICULUM STANDARDIZATION Early steps towards the strengthening of ties between high schools and higher education were accomplished through accreditation and curricular standardization associations. Kandel (1930, pp. 465– 472) provides an overview of this process. The accrediting of secondary schools by colleges and universities had begun as early as the 1870s. By 1897, 42 state colleges had agreed to accept graduates from public and private secondary schools that they had visited and accredited on a state level. Several associations were formed that had a regional and national influence on secondary school and college curricular standardization and college entrance requirements: the New England Association of College and Preparatory Schools (1885), the Association of College and Preparatory Schools of the Middle States and Maryland (1892), the College Entrance Examination Board (1899), and the North Central Association (1894). Although these organizations worked to strengthen curricular ties between secondary schools and higher education, they did not define the purpose of the high school nor did they represent a unified national consensus on this curriculum. Committee of Ten of 1893 To study the problems and potential solutions of a standardized high school curriculum, the NEA appointed Harvard President Charles W. Eliot to lead a committee comprised of six college presidents, three secondary school representatives, and the United States Commissioner of Education (National Education Association [NEA], 1893, p. 4). This first committee appointed 10 members each to nine subcommittees who would attend conferences representing each subject area: 1. Latin 2. Greek 3. English 4. Other modern languages 5. Mathematics 6. Sciences (physics, astronomy, and chemistry)

< previous page

page_10

next page >

< previous page

page_11

next page >

Page 11 7. Natural history (biology, botany, zoology, and physiology) 8. Social studies (history, civil government, and political economy) 9. Geography (physical geography, geology, and meteorology) (NEA, 1893, p. 5) Representatives for each committee were selected from various regions of the United States and constituencies at the secondary school and college levels. The committee members making up the Latin, Greek, and modern languages committees consisted of 30 representatives from a relatively even distribution of public and private secondary schools and institutions of higher education. Each committee was charged with answering fundamental questions of its subject discipline: Who should engage the study of this subject? What are the necessary content and methods of instruction? What should be the educational sequence? How can the process of articulation and entrance examinations between secondary and higher education be improved? The recommendations proposed by the three foreign language committees, not surprisingly, were favorable towards their discipline. The Latin and Greek committees broke from their traditional college preparatory function to suggest that all students, regardless of post-secondary goals, should study three years of Greek, four years of Latin, and ideally begin the study of Latin prior to secondary school (NEA, 1893, pp. 60–85). The “other modern languages” committee recommended that all students begin the study of a first modern language in fifth grade as an elective course open to all students. The study of this first language, begun in elementary school, should continue through the four years of secondary school. It also recommended that if a second language (modern or classical) is studied in secondary school, it should begin during the 10th grade and continue for three years (NEA, 1893, pp. 96–97). The overseeing, or tenth, committee was charged with the task of consolidating recommendations from each of the subject discipline committees and developing standardized curriculum recommendations. The solution came in the form of four proposed curricular programs meeting varied academic needs: the classical, the Latin-scientific, the modern languages, and English. The committee developed the programs for trial in schools with a four-year sequence (NEA, 1893, p. 44). A combination of modern and classical languages was prominent in each of the four programs. Year equivalents ranged from six years in the Modern Languages program to nine years (three years of a modern language and six in a classical language) in the classical program (NEA, 1893, p. 44). Ten goal statements accompanied the four curricular programs. They represented the rationale and consensus for the academics and the importance that these recommendations would have on the curriculum. The first two goals stressed that all subjects represented by committees were important and

< previous page

page_11

next page >

< previous page

page_12

next page >

Page 12 that all students would be expected to complete coursework in each discipline: 1. To conform to the general recommendations of the nine committees 2. To treat each subject in the same way for all students with the fewest exceptions The next three goals acted to increase the time allotted to each subject discipline by removing or deemphasizing courses that did not contribute to the development of mental discipline: 3. To devote adequate time for in-depth study of the subject in order to derive the mental training it provides 4. To provide equality among the subject disciplines in terms of time allotment 5. To omit all short (information) courses The next three goals assured that the study of four main subject disciplines over the four years of high school would help assure college entrance. Note that English is not listed within these core subjects. 6. To make continuous the instruction of the main subject disciplines: language, science, history, and mathematics 7. To prepare all students for possible continuation of a subject discipline in college 8. To meet requirements for college admission The final two goals provided a broad curriculum over the first two years until the post-secondary goals of students were clear: 9. To allow for the delay in the choice of secondary school program between the Latin-scientific and the classical until the third year 10. To provide a two-year course of study that includes each main subject discipline for those students who do not complete their secondary education. (NEA, 1893, pp. 45–48) The overseeing committee was particularly concerned with the view that secondary schools should be able to exist not for college preparation but as educational institutions of their own merit. True, the Committee of Ten was formed in large part to study the problem of standardization as it related to college admission. The committee was also formed, however, to make recommendations for the standardization of a secondary school curriculum that would serve all students, be they “pupils who are going to college, … to a scientific school, or who … are going to neither” (NEA, 1893, p. 6). Influence of the Committee of Ten’s Report The recommendations of the Committee of Ten were generally accepted throughout the United States and determined the curriculum of secondary schools in most communities through the next two decades (Inglis, 1924, p. 257). More than 30,000 copies of the original report were distributed in 1893, and a second publication run was necessary the following year (Willis et al., 1993, p. 85). Yearly reports of public high school enrollments by the Commissioner of Education through 1911 regularly cited the Committee of

< previous page

page_12

next page >

< previous page

page_13

next page >

Page 13 Ten’s curriculum recommendations, reproduced figures from the 1893 report outlining the four programs of study, and provided estimates of enrollments in the academic programs. The Commissioner of Education report of 1911 noted: Any general discussion of high school studies would be incomplete without a reference to the famous “Report of the Committee of Ten.” In 1893, that committee made its report to the National Education Association, and for 17 years its recommendations have been the inspiration of many thousands of high school principals and teachers whose aim has been to live up to the model courses of study arranged by that committee. (U.S. Office of Education, 1911, p. 1133) Brown (1909) provides a national sample of high school curricula during this period that reveals clear evidence of the recommended programs of study. High schools typically offered college preparatory programs that aligned with the recommended classical and Latin scientific programs, often substituting modern languages for classical. Vocational and commercial programs were increasingly offered in lieu of an English program. Committee on College Entrance Requirements of 1895 While the Committee of Ten’s work targeted the secondary school curriculum for standardization, there remained the question of whether college and universities would accept and adjust in return their entrance requirements in a standardized format. The NEA appointed the Committee on College Entrance Requirements in 1895 to provide recommendations on this problem. The final report, issued in 1899, represented the input of 150 experts in secondary and higher education (Kandel, 1930, p. 476). It included 14 resolutions, of which the sixth recommended a set of constants by subject area that all colleges and universities should require for entrance: four units in foreign language (at least two years per language studied), two units in mathematics, two units in English, one in history, and one in science (Kandel, 1930, p. 477, Popham, 1969, p. 143). At the turn of the century, foreign language remained an integral part of the secondary school curriculum designed to serve a small percentage of adolescents and became firmly established within the traditional college preparatory mission. FOREIGN LANGUAGE AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY: GOLDEN AGE OR MYTH? The prominence of foreign language in secondary education at the turn of the century is often presented in idealized terms. For example, the only common feature distinguishing the four programs of high school study proposed by the Committee of Ten was the number and amount of foreign language (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, pp. 198–199, Uhl, 1927, pp. 192–193). The fact that its purpose in the curriculum was to contribute to the “mental training” of all students for life, regardless of their prospects for post-secondary education, has not been

< previous page

page_13

next page >

< previous page

page_14

next page >

Page 14 lost in the foreign language education literature. Herron (1982) points to this report as a visionary rebuttal to educators who suggest that foreign language is an elitist subject only for high achieving and college-bound students. Grittner (1976, p. 8) describes foreign language in secondary education between 1890 and the early 1900s as a paradox. Although the foundations of the American high school were that of a terminal institution, enrollments in foreign language study at the turn of the century were at 80 percent, one of the highest levels in history. Davis (1997, p. 156) supports this figure, noting that before the traditional academic curriculum was “marginalized,” 84 percent of all high school students studied a foreign language until the year 1910. These interpretations suggest a golden age in foreign language education—a peak in interest and prestige as most students studied a classical or modern language in an academic program for mental development and preparation for life. The Committee of Ten’s final report explicitly stated that the primary function of secondary education should not be college preparation. It adamantly spoke of the need to educate students for life. This report described, however, the institution of secondary education as one that serves the interests of the nation by educating only a small percentage of the adolescent population: The secondary schools of the United States, taken as a whole, do not exist for the purpose of preparing boys and girls for colleges. Only an insignificant percentage of graduates of these schools go to colleges or scientific schools. Their main function is to prepare for the duties of life that small proportion of all the children in the country—a proportion small in number, but very important to the welfare of the nation—who show themselves able to profit by an education prolonged to the 18th year and whose parents are able to support them while they remain so long at school. (NEA, 1893, p. 51) As the first national education document to outline consensus on the standardization of all secondary schools, the Committee of Ten’s report reflected the student population and various secondary and higher education constituencies of 1893. A number of factors assured the formalization of foreign language as an integral subject in the secondary school curriculum. First, three of the nine subject discipline committees represented foreign language. Second, half of the members of the three foreign language committees represented higher education and private institutions. Private secondary schools were the most represented of all institutions. The purpose of foreign language in the “preparation for life” served students enrolled in private schools and higher education more directly than it did the greater population. Finally, the work of the Committee of Ten admittedly was intended to serve only the few students who had the means to enroll in secondary education. It was not a curricular proposal for mass education. Rather, it was an attempt to standardize the secondary school curriculum to serve the approximately 6–10 percent of the adolescent population enrolled in secondary education at that time in history and the smaller proportion who were potential college entrants (enrollment statistics cited from the U.S. Department of Education, 2000, Table 57).

< previous page

page_14

next page >

< previous page

page_15

next page >

Page 15 The golden age suggested by some in foreign language education is an interpretation skewed towards the views of higher education, private institutions, and the needs of a small proportion of students in the context of 1893. Historical and contemporary enrollment data on secondary education suggest that this statement is a myth. Comprehensive Data on Foreign Language Education Comprehensive enrollment data that would support the idea of a golden age has not been collected in one summative and consistent source (see the introduction to the appendices at the end of this book). Such data would serve to clarify historical trends of frequency and the amount of foreign language studied through the historical development of secondary education. Sources that do exist present enrollment data in a traditional format, void of historical context. Traditionally, enrollments are reported as percentages based on the high school population of a given year. This approach is problematic because it does not account for the increasing ability of the public high school to enroll larger numbers of students over its historical development. For example, 80 percent of students might have been enrolled in foreign language in the public high school of 1900. Fewer than 10 percent of the adolescent population, however, was enrolled in high school during that period. In contrast, in 2000 fewer students were enrolled in foreign language (44 percent) while the public high school enrolled nearly 90 percent of the adolescent population. How can enrollment trends account for these changes over time? Enrollments by school and adolescent populations . An alternative approach to the presentation of this data is to compute the percentage of the entire adolescent population enrolled in foreign language in a given year. The advantage gained is twofold. First, this approach applies a standardized measure of the increasing ability of the public high school to enroll adolescents across periods of reform that have changed secondary education. Second, it offers a historical measure of a central goal common to contemporary national reform in general education and foreign language education—that all of American youth should develop competence in a second language. Appendices A–D and Figure 2-1 present summary data of the public high school population enrolled in foreign language (traditional approach) and the adolescent population age 14–17 enrolled in foreign language (alternative approach) across periods of education reform from 1889 to 2000. Several trends are readily apparent from this data. Traditional interpretations of foreign language enrollments, represented by the initial upper line in Figure 2-1, suggest 1905 as the point of highest enrollments and the proceeding years as those of steady decline. The percentage of public high school students enrolled in foreign language peaked at 81.3 percent in 1905

< previous page

page_15

next page >

< previous page

page_16

next page >

Page 16 following publication of the Committee of Ten’s report. A steady pattern of decline is reported until the 1940s, when enrollments gradually rose and peaked in the 1960s and 1980s. These enrollment patterns will be discussed in relationship with periods of education reform in proceeding chapters. What is important here is the trend towards peak enrollments in the early 1900s with long-term decline, as depicted by traditional interpretations. When foreign language enrollments are interpreted as a percentage of the entire adolescent population, the data present a different trend. From 1889 to 1933, enrollments gradually rose in direct contradiction to traditional interpretations. By 1948, these enrollments reflect the same increases and decreases of traditional enrollment patterns with peaks in the 1960s and 1980s. The general trend is one that presents an opposite view as depicted in the foreign language education literature. Rather than a pattern of loss over the past century, the public high school steadily enrolled more adolescents in foreign language—and through periods of higher and lower enrollments has enrolled record numbers towards the end of the century. We will revisit these two approaches to the interpretation of foreign language enrollments, traditional and alternative, in the remaining chapters of this book. Enrollments by level of instruction . A second measure that would support the idea of a golden age is the length of study students completed in high school. Public high schools enrolled more Americans in foreign language than any other educational institution at the turn of the 19th century. But were the majority of these students completing advanced-level study? The percentage of students enrolled in beginning- through advanced-level courses is based on the current high school population enrolled in foreign language in a given year. Contemporary education reform places an emphasis on the long-term study of a second language. Has the length of study dramatically changed over the past century? Appendix E and Table 2-1 present a summary of enrollment data for nine points from 1905 to 2000 by level of instruction. These years represent periods of extreme high and low enrollments over nine decades. The beginning level represents those students enrolled in first through second-year courses, while the advanced level represents those students enrolled in the third year or higher in high school (see the introduction to the appendices and Appendices E–L in the back of this book). Table 2-1 presents a variation of more than 20 percent in the percentage of students enrolled at the advanced level between 1905 and 2000. The limited availability of accurate data for foreign language enrollments by level at the turn of the century hampers definitive conclusions (see the appendices introduction). It is estimated that 30 percent of enrollments were at the advanced level in 1905.1 By

< previous page

page_16

next page >

< previous page

page_17

next page >

Page 17

Figure 2-1 A comparison of three enrollment trends from 1889–1994: foreign language enrollment by the high school and entire adolescent populations and enrollment in public high school by the entire adolescent population.

< previous page

page_17

next page >

< previous page

page_18

next page >

Page 18 1924, enrollments at the advanced level had dropped to 12.6 percent. It is only in the last part of the 20th century that advanced-level enrollments have steadily increased to more than 20 percent. The general trend suggests that the beginning level has enrolled the vast majority of students over the past century. Even in the year 1905, when the highest enrollment rates in foreign language were recorded, 69 percent of students studied at the beginning level. Table 2-1 Summary Table of Enrollment Percentages by Definition and Level for Nine Representative Years: 1905–2000 Percentage enrolled in foreign language Percentage by level Baseline Year High school population Adolescent population Beginning Advanced 1905 81.3 8.8 69.0 31.0 1924 55.3 13.5 87.4 12.6 1933 28.7 17.1 89.5 10.5 1948 21.9 13.6 91.5 8.5 1963 32.2 25.7 86.6 13.4 1978 22.1 18.2 82.1 17.9 1985 32.2 27.0 82.3 17.7 1994 42.2 34.7 79.6 20.4 2000 43.8 37.5 78.0 22.0 Note: See the appendices for detailed data by year. Enrollments by language. If one subscribes to the view that a golden age in foreign language took place nearly 100 years ago, then this time period would be reduced primarily to a focus on Latin. The study of classical languages (Greek and Latin) is directly tied to the college preparatory origins of secondary education. Suggestions that these languages were worthy of study by all students for purposes of mental discipline came later as secondary education formalized into a national system of predominantly public high schools. In this view, the loss of enrollments and prestige of foreign language in the curriculum can be linked to a reduction in the college preparatory mission of secondary education central to its origins. Enrollment data by language over the past century, however, presents a far more dynamic process of change. Appendices A–D and Figure 2-2 present

< previous page

page_18

next page >

< previous page

page_19

next page >

Page 19 comprehensive enrollment data for all foreign languages across periods of education reform from 1889 to 2000. Two general trends are important to the discussion of events at the turn of the century: the dominance of classical over modern languages early in this history and the early appearance and fluctuations over time of the same three modern languages that dominate present foreign language education. Figure 2-2 presents a summary of enrollments by Latin (representing classical languages) and modern languages (consisting of French, German, and Spanish for purposes of comparison). These four languages account for 94.3 percent or more of all foreign language enrollments from 1889 to 1994. These data demonstrate the problem of grouping all languages into one general “foreign language” category for historical comparison. They also reflect the changing nature of what it meant to study language and the place and purposes of the study of language in the curriculum over time. In the early 1900s, classical languages were central in the education system both in terms of curricular offerings and enrollments. The proportion of enrollments accounted for by Latin peaked in 1896 at 68.3 percent, three years after the publication of the Committee of Ten’s report. The trend in the study of Latin is one of slow decline until 1921, when enrollments equaled those in modern languages. Modern language enrollments quickly overtook those in Latin from 1924. The percentage of students enrolled in Latin has continued its decline through the 1990s. The rise and fall of individual modern languages over time has been equally disproportional. Appendices A and C present detailed change from 1889 to 2000. Until 1914, classical Greek represented the only major alternative language to French, German, and Latin in terms of enrollment data and course offerings attesting to the traditional college preparatory contribution of foreign language to the curriculum. German dominated modern languages during this period. Enrollments in German continued to rise through the first decade of the new century with a rate of 33.3 percent reached in 1914. French enrollments hovered at 11 percent during this period. By the end of the wartime period (encompassing World Wars I and II), enrollment rates reported for 1948 in German had collapsed to 3.6 percent and doubled in French to 25.2 percent. Growth in Spanish represents some of the greatest gains in the past 100 years. Unlike French and German, which had recorded enrollment data in the earliest surveys, enrollments in Spanish were only first recorded in 1909 (with a 0.8 percent enrollment rate). From this late start, Spanish increased dramatically as German declined sharply. By 1948, Spanish represented not only the highest enrolled modern language, but it had become the first modern language to surpass Latin. The most dramatic growth has come in the final three decades of the 20th century. From 1974 to 2000, Spanish enrollments have been greater than the enrollments in all other foreign languages

< previous page

page_19

next page >

< previous page

page_20

next page >

Page 20

Figure 2-2 A comparison of enrollments in Latin and modern languages (French, German, and Spanish) from 1889–1994.

< previous page

page_20

next page >

< previous page

page_21

next page >

Page 21 combined. In many ways, Spanish has replaced Latin in the new century as greater numbers of high school students complete an academic program for the preparation of college and graduates enroll into higher education. We will discuss a more detailed discussion of enrollment changes in individual foreign language languages within the historical context of education reform in later chapters. The general trends presented in this section suggest that the loss and gains in foreign language study are attributable to different languages at different periods in history. Rather than consistent changes across all languages, a compensating process emerged at the turn of the last century and in later periods that foreshadowed the ability of different languages to serve different purposes in the changing curriculum. CONCLUSION Foreign language education at the turn of the century was central in a secondary school curriculum that still held to its traditional college preparatory foundation. As secondary education was increasingly mandated in states, it was transformed into a public institution. Initial growing pains were focused on creating a standardized curriculum that would serve a limited percentage of adolescents enrolled in secondary education and guarantee college entrance for all graduates. This “preparation for life” served a small percentage of adolescents. The central place of foreign language in this curriculum and the high enrollment rates in classical, and increasingly modern, languages have prompted suggestions of a golden age. This myth has persisted in part because comprehensive data has not been examined under the context of historical change in education. General trends in this data suggest that the end of the 20th century, not the beginning, has seen record highs in enrollments. While the study of classical languages, primarily Latin, was in decline at the beginning of the past century, modern languages increasingly enrolled a greater proportion of students. Spanish has emerged as the single dominant foreign language, enrolling more students that all others combined. In the early 1900s, however, a traditional classical education that included Latin and limited modern language was the norm for the lucky few who enrolled in secondary education. NOTE 1. The 1905 percentages represent estimates based upon graduation rates and might be inflated. See the introduction to the appendices for a detailed description of the estimation procedures for this year.

< previous page

page_21

next page >

< previous page

page_22

next page >

page_22

next page >

Page 22 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_23

next page >

Page 23 3 Opportunities Lost in Foreign Language: The Progressive Transformation of Public Secondary Education The public high school arrived relatively late onto the American educational scene. Elementary education and higher education developed first, without an intermediary institution bridging the two. Latin grammar schools were created for the purpose of preparing students for college and leadership. The short-lived academies produced an array of institutions that were rarely attended, private, expensive, and were inconsistent in their curricular offerings beyond college preparation. The rapid growth and spread of publicly funded high schools initially fell under the influence of constituents in higher education who were concerned that this emerging institution should continue a college preparatory function as it replaced Latin grammar schools and academies (Brown, 1916, pp. 30–31). The 1893 report of the Committee of Ten represented curriculum reform consistent with the traditional development of secondary education up to that point in history. It served a small proportion of adolescents within a limited academic curriculum. Considerable pressure mounted to further reform the curriculum in the decade after the release of this report, however, as the enrollments in the growing and increasingly mandatory public high school system grew exponentially. Higher education itself was changing as programs in scientific, technical, agricultural, and business fields grew and demanded students with broader academic preparation. Change that came during the progressive reforms in education of the 1920s and 1930s had a profound effect on the secondary school curriculum. Opportunities for new enrollments and a re-examination of the place and purpose of subject disciplines in the curriculum challenged foreign language education. This period represents a time of

< previous page

page_23

next page >

< previous page

page_24

next page >

Page 24 opportunities lost as the profession failed to adapt and secure a place for the study of language beyond its traditional foundation. EDUCATION REFORM AND THE DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM Through the early 1900s, enrollment in secondary education continued to increase as the construction of public high schools spread from urban to rural areas (Kandel, 1930, p. 488). From 1900 to 1920, enrollments quadrupled from 519,000 to 2,200,000. By 1920, public high schools had nearly replaced private as they enrolled 91.1 percent of the secondary school population (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975, pp. 368–269). This incredible growth was only the beginning of mass secondary education, however. The percentage of adolescents enrolled in public high schools rose from 8.8 percent to 27.6 percent during this period (see Appendix B). There still remained a majority of the adolescent population outside the education system. Even greater enrollments were expected as the transformation of secondary education into a comprehensive and common institution continued. The curriculum recommendations proposed by the Committee of Ten for standardization within this growing system were criticized on a number of fronts. A prominent figure in education at the time, G. Stanley Hall, criticized this standardization and uniformity of the school curriculum as unresponsive to the height of “natural spontaneity” and variation, which is greatest during adolescence (Kleibard, 1995, p. 12). Hall, a developmentalist and author of books on youth and adolescent development, focused criticism of the committee’s report on “three extraordinary fallacies” (Kleibard, 1995, pp. 12–13). The first was the college influence, which resulted in teaching all students in the same way regardless of their life or occupational destination. The second was the assumption that subjects were of equal educational value, providing that they were taught equally well. The third was the assumption that an education that prepared students for college equally prepared them for life. Each of these points stressed the need to rethink the structure of traditional academic subjects to produce a curriculum that was more responsive to the vocational, democratizing, as well as intellectual needs of a new student population (Spears, 1940, pp. 45–46). Societal pressures for further change in the curriculum were also great. A growing efficiency movement in industry had found its way into the dialogue on education. Advocates such as Joseph Mayer Rice called for more competent and effective schools (Willis et al., 1993, p. 135). The social efficiency movement viewed the central role of the high school as preparing students for their adult lives. This movement proposed the identification of students’ strengths and weaknesses and their placement in educational programs that prepared them for their social and vocational lives after high

< previous page

page_24

next page >

< previous page

page_25

next page >

Page 25 school. Advocates of social efficiency also identified the need to provide students with survival skills for living and participating in society and increasing social cohesion in schools (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 222). As the general discussion on curriculum reform continued, increasing numbers of students were being prepared for and were entering higher education. From 1900–1910, enrollments in higher education increased by 117,000 students (U.S. Department of Education, 1993, p. 85, Table 24). This situation exacerbated debate on the secondary school curriculum as supporters of the Committee of Ten cited a continued need for college preparation. As a response, the NEA appointed several committees to study the ongoing debate of the secondary school curriculum and to make recommendations for change. The Committee of Nine was formed in 1910 to make recommendations for a program of study high schools should offer for college preparation. This committee consisted entirely of public high school representatives with the exception of one college dean and one professor of education. The committee’s report of 1911 argued against rigid foreign language and mathematics requirements for college entrance and instead proposed a 15-unit program for graduation and college entrance. An 11-unit minimum would be devoted to English, foreign languages, mathematics, social science, and natural science (Popham, 1969, p. 154). It is interesting to note that a college education during this period was more rare than a secondary education. Despite the continued issue of college preparation in education reform, only 2.8 percent of the 18–24-year-old population enrolled in post-secondary education in 1910 (U.S. Department of Education, 1993, p. 85, Table 24). Greater numbers of high school graduates were forgoing college and directly entering the workforce as the new century continued. In 1911, the NEA appointed the Committee on Economy of Time in Education to study how the curriculum could further accommodate change. This committee issued five reports from 1913 to 1918. Its first report of 1913 included recommendations that high schools simplify courses of instruction, reduce the number of required subjects and courses for college entrance, revitalize subjects to relate to modern life, and provide moral training and preparation for citizenship (Willis et al., 1993, pp. 141–142). Secondary education reform was moving farther away from a primary focus on college preparation and towards the needs and impact on society of its growing number of graduates. The Cardinal Principles of 1918 The NEA and United States Bureau of Education cosponsored the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education (CRSE) in 1911 to address these trends and pressures, and to consolidate recommendations for change (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 14). The goals of this commission were to:

< previous page

page_25

next page >

< previous page

page_26

next page >

Page 26 1. Recommend aims, efficient methods, and materials to enable each subject area to best serve the needs of high school students 2. Provide recommendations to help inexperienced teachers in their instruction 3. Ensure that the needs of the high school are of the utmost concern of institutions of teacher training 4. Secure college entrance recognition for courses that meet the needs of high school students (Kandel, 1930, p. 488) Like the Committee of Ten, this commission was comprised of one overseeing committee and separate subject discipline subcommittees. This overseeing committee bore little resemblance to that of the Committee of Ten, however. It was comprised of six professors of education, three representatives from normal (or teacher preparation) schools, three representatives from the United States Bureau of Education, three local school administrators, two public high school teachers, and one college president (who was a former professor of education) (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 15). Private secondary institutions, which had been equally represented in the various committees of 1893, did not have representatives on this committee. One year prior to the publication of the overseeing commission’s final report, the federal government passed the Smith-Hughes Vocational Education Act in 1917. This act provided federal funds for the expansion of high school curricula to include courses in trades, agriculture, and home economics (Kandel, 1930, p. 488). It also coincided with the general recommendations of the overseeing committee the following year. The purpose of the overseeing committee’s 1918 summative publication, Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education (henceforth referred to as the Cardinal Principles), was “to broaden the curriculum to encompass virtually all of life’s experiences, not merely academic subjects” (Willis et al., 1993, p. 153). Preparation for life was not to be viewed through the subject areas. Rather, the Cardinal Principles challenged subject areas to serve seven identified objectives of life preparation: health, command of fundamental processes, worthy home membership, vocational preparation, citizenship, worthy use of leisure time, and development of ethical character. These objectives were intended to facilitate the interrelation of subject areas and a unitary and continuous process of education (Kandel, 1930, p. 490). As an explanation of this new orientation, the report’s introduction cited changes in society, the secondary school population, and educational theory that demanded a reorganization of secondary education (Willis et al., 1993, p. 155). The Cardinal Principles represent the transformation of the institution of secondary education into that of a comprehensive public institution designed to enroll all of America’s youth (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p.

< previous page

page_26

next page >

< previous page

page_27

next page >

Page 27 222). The curriculum that emerged during the 1920s and 1930s was differentiated by four general tracks: the college preparatory or academic; the commercial or business; vocational (including industrial, agricultural, and home economics studies); and the modified academic for students terminating further education upon graduation (Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 183). This curriculum also sought to provide social cohesion through the introduction of extracurricular courses and activities such as music, art, sports, physical education, and student government in which all students, regardless of academic program, would participate (Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 505, Urban and Wagoner, 1996, pp. 222– 223). In terms of individual subject disciplines, new courses would be introduced and offerings would be expanded to meet the varying needs of students. PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION REFORM OF THE 1920s AND 1930s During the 1920s and 1930s, curricula in American public high schools greatly expanded to offer differentiated programs aligned with real-life experience—the occupational, social, and personal skills deemed necessary in adult lives (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 18). This period in the history of American education represents the time between two world wars, the Great Depression, and an era of progressivism in education. Progressivism grew out of the social and political progressive movements at the turn of the century (Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 221). As these socio-political movements receded in the 1920s, the era of progressive education, with its focus on students’ needs and interests, continued to grow as a central organizing principle of the high school curriculum (Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 221; Willis et al., 1993, p. 255). Vocational education grew as an established program during these decades, as did courses in agriculture, business, home economics, and a variety of extracurricular courses (Kleibard, 1995, p. 111). Traditional subjects that remained in the curriculum were often transformed to be more utilitarian (Kleibard, 1995, p. 108). History, for example, was replaced or supplemented by social studies courses that stressed citizenship and American values and norms to the new generation of high school students (Kleibard, 1995, p. 108). Although reform before this progressive era focused on standardization and common goals in education, the curricula of American high schools still varied by locality (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 18). This variation continued during the 1920s and 1930s as schools experimented with new course offerings and programs of study. Angus and Mirel (1999, pp. 44–47) report several general curricular trends that took place on a national level during these decades. First, the number of courses offered, particularly related to voca-

< previous page

page_27

next page >

< previous page

page_28

next page >

Page 28 tional skills, increased. Second, graduation requirements for high school were reduced. Finally, the majority of students continued to enroll in academic programs but increasingly took courses in industrial and vocational arts, business, and extracurricular courses. Differentiation by Subject Discipline The appearance of new subjects and changes in enrollments in these and traditional subject disciplines in the 1920s and 1930s are represented in Appendix F. The study of these enrollment statistics serves as an approach to measure the expectations of educational policy makers against actual change in the school curriculum (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 4). These data reflect the process through which many academic subjects were able to continue to enroll a proportion of the growing student population. New subject disciplines such as business, agriculture, industrial subjects, and a variety of extracurricular subjects were introduced during this period and enrolled increasing proportions of students. The transformation of English from a traditional academic subject to a comprehensive subject in which virtually all students enrolled is depicted in Appendix F. The growth and support of this subject in the curriculum reflected not only a continued focus on literacy from the elementary and junior high school grades but also the “mother tongue” of a comprehensive education aimed at citizenship and student populations (Brown, 1916, p. 103). Other traditional academic subjects were able to curb decreasing enrollment trends by introducing general studies courses and new course offerings. Science, history (social studies), and math enrollments grew dramatically from 1890 to 1910 but lost enrollments in the ensuing decades. By 1922, six new courses were offered in science, including a general studies course that enabled this subject to continue to enroll at least 50 percent of the growing student population through the 1940s. The introduction of general math and a presence in business studies helped math to maintain similar proportions of students. History was transformed into social studies and represented the greatest variation in course offerings. By 1934, nine distinct course offerings enrolled 59.4 percent of the student population. Enrollment losses in foreign language represent a very different pattern from other traditional academic subjects. Despite increased course offerings in the form of modern languages, a continued pattern of decline occurred through the 1920s and 1930s and well into the 1940s. Our discussion now turns to this steady decline that is unique to foreign language. The Problem of Foreign Language in the Differentiated Curriculum As a subject within the curriculum affected by progressivism, foreign language was increasingly challenged to justify its purpose beyond the tradi-

< previous page

page_28

next page >

< previous page

page_29

next page >

Page 29 tional college preparatory and academic or mental training capacity. In a comprehensive study of the teaching of foreign languages in the United States in 1931, Cole conceded that the general consensus in education was that fewer students should study languages and that doubt had been cast upon what the foreign language profession had traditionally viewed as valuable in its study (1931, p. 36). He noted the reluctance of the profession to view the study of language within the greater context of general secondary education: Modern-language partisans naturally enough have been prone to consider the matter from the point of view of the intrinsic value of the languages as interpreted by themselves as language experts. They have been disinclined in many cases to consider the problem in terms of the learner or of society in general but rather in terms of the subject itself. (Cole, 1931, p. 36) Educational historians critical of the Cardinal Principles suggest that rather than democratize education, it shifted education away from academic and vocational foci to the custodial care of students and eventually the lowering of academic standards for all students (Angus and Mirel, 1999, pp. 3, 198–199). Similar views have been voiced in foreign language professional literature with regard to the reduced emphasis on foreign language in the differentiated curriculum (Davis, 1997; Herron, 1982). It is pointed out in these criticisms that the Cardinal Principles were void of subject-specific recommendations and marginalized foreign language because it was an academic subject. Indeed, the percentage of public high school students enrolled in foreign languages decreased from 64.5 percent in 1914 to 28.7 percent in 1933 (see Appendix A). A modern language subcommittee had been appointed by the CRSE in 1911 to make recommendations for reform. Angus and Mirel (1999, pp. 14–15) suggest that the slow progress of the subject-specific subcommittees in the completion of their reports for the CRSE led to the decision by the overseeing committee to publish the separate Cardinal Principles report in 1918. There was no official report issued by the modern language committee. A reorganized committee did manage to release a report on the teaching of foreign languages in junior high schools in 1927, however (Fife, 1931, p. 2). By 1924, a new initiative called the Modern Foreign Language Study was organized by the American Council on Education and the Modern Language Association and funded by the Carnegie Corporation. Several reports were issued from this work over the ensuing years. These included publications on experiments with language tests, studies on the reading of languages, graded, frequency, and idiom word books, achievement tests, enrollments, modern language instruction in the United States and Canada, and teacher training (Fife, 1931; Handschin, 1943, p. 48). Only the 1929 report, The Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages in the United States by Algernon Coleman (1929), dealt directly with issues facing foreign language in the changing secondary

< previous page

page_29

next page >

< previous page

page_30

next page >

Page 30 school curriculum. During the 11 years that had elapsed since publication of the Cardinal Principles, dramatic growth in public high school enrollments continued to put a premium on education reform. By 1933, 59.5 percent of all adolescents were enrolled in high school—double the percentage only a decade earlier (see Appendix B). Foreign language was central to a secondary school curriculum for the few, but could this status remain in a curriculum for the masses? The 1929 report authored by Coleman, henceforth referred to as “ The Coleman Report,” addressed the issue of curriculum reform primarily through methodology. Coleman proposed a method of teaching modern languages for the primary purpose of development of reading skills and the passive recognition of grammar (Handschin, 1943, p. 49). This method was specifically intended to address the limited twoyear sequence of study in high school and college by focusing on achievable skill development. Described as the “surrender value” of foreign language to a profession resigned to this diminished sequence (Childers, 1964, p. 39), this report represented a reactionary approach to national curriculum reform. Although the limited usefulness of foreign language to occupations in commerce, engineering, and journalism was detailed in the report (Coleman, 1929, pp. 11–15), a progressive change in course structure or offerings was not discussed. Rather, the approach was one of describing teaching and enrollment practices nationally, the outcomes of these trends, the recognition of shortcomings, and the reformulation of existing teaching methods to match the current situation. Foreign language during the progressive period in education reform reverted further back to its origins in mental discipline and college preparation. Cole’s 1931 review of prevailing recommendations for high school foreign language courses and their contributions to college entrance recognized the continued traditional role that foreign language played in the high school curriculum: These recommendations … have both directly and indirectly determined the content of secondary school instruction in modern languages to this day. There is no recognition of the needs of the non-college preparatory secondary school student; it is assumed that one course, college preparatory in nature, will do for all. (Cole, p. 25) Forms of Differentiation in Foreign Language The disproportional enrollment losses in foreign language compared with other subject disciplines during the progressive era have been attributed to several social forces in professional literature. Besides curriculum reform, the effect of the World War I on German enrollments and a general focus on English language literacy for immigrant children are cited as contributors to lowering enrollments (Bernhardt, 1999; Childers, 1964; Herman, 2002). The reaction of the foreign language profession to curriculum reform and

< previous page

page_30

next page >

< previous page

page_31

next page >

Page 31 changing enrollment trends during this period, however, add greater strength to the position that the profession’s lack of appropriate response to the opportunities of education reform was a significant contributor to decline, in addition to uncontrollable circumstances. Forms of differentiation did take place in foreign language during this period; however, they served to reinforce certain traditional views on the place and purpose of language in the curriculum and to establish new trends that would persist for the next 70 years. Differentiation through modern languages . One form of differentiation in foreign language was the expansion of opportunities to learn modern languages as public secondary education expanded. The trend in foreign language study at the turn of the 19th century was one of general growth in the study of modern languages and the decline in classical languages. Enrollments in Latin and Greek initially grew towards the end of the 1890s. Classical languages accounted for more than 70 percent of foreign language enrollments until 1889 (see Appendix D). From this point, a steady decline began as enrollments in modern languages increased. Fueled by increases in the study of French, German, and Spanish, 81.3 percent of all high school students studied a foreign language by 1905. The share of classical languages had dropped to 63.3 percent by this year. Over the next 10 years, each of the three modern languages continued to post growth as Latin and Greek enrollments continued to decline. By 1914, classical languages accounted for 51.2 percent of overall enrollments. The study of classical languages (predominantly Latin) represented the earliest curricular link between foreign language and the traditional college preparatory function of secondary education. This relationship was weakened with changes in secondary and higher education. As early as 1917, Charles Eliot, the lead author of the Committee of Ten report, declared that Latin should not be a compulsory high school subject because it was not necessary for the study of literature and cultures (Tanner, 1971, p. 269). A 1925 study of the changes in entrance requirements of 30 state universities found a trend towards the decrease or elimination of foreign language requirements from 1890 to 1922 (Werner, 1925, p. 270). By 1922, 15 of the 30 universities in this study had eliminated the requirement, and 10 had reduced it to two years. After a period of growth in the study of Latin immediately following the 1893 Committee of Ten report, its decline in the curriculum came swiftly. This early pattern of decline in classical languages and growth in modern language reflects the fundamental shift in the secondary school curriculum proposed in the Cardinal Principles. Education reform produced a public secondary school institution that was better able to offer educational options beyond college preparation and the traditional academic subjects. This did not, however, lead to the demise of foreign language in the curriculum. As gains were made in the percentage of adolescents enrolling in high schools,

< previous page

page_31

next page >

< previous page

page_32

next page >

Page 32 the percentage of this population studying a foreign language also increased through the study of modern languages. From 1914 to 1933, the percentage of the entire adolescent population enrolled in a foreign language modestly increased from 11.3 percent to 17.1 percent (see Appendix B). Additionally, unlike the academy, where modern language study was first formally introduced for pragmatic purposes, the public high school made the study of foreign language accessible to all students as the curriculum was differentiated in schools across the country. Change within modern language after World War I: the collapse of German and the rise of French and Spanish. The near collapse of German language study after the outbreak of war in 1917 represented not only a monumental blow to modern language study but also the fragmentation of modern language as a cohesive discipline. German led the growth in the study of modern languages prior to World War I. This language was best positioned to replace Latin in foreign language education before the war. Its position was supported in numerous ways: the influence of German education on the organization of American higher education, national societies of language and culture, national (and numerous local) German language presses, German language public and parochial elementary schools, and a sizable population of citizens of German heritage. The effect of World War I, however, was to permanently diminish German in the curriculum. When the secondary school year began in 1914, 33.2 percent of all public high school students were enrolled in German. By 1921, only 1.2 percent remained in German language classrooms (see Appendix A). Childers (1964) and Herman (2002) describe the socio-historical forces at work in American education over the course of World War I. Twenty-two state legislatures outlawed or restricted the teaching of German in schools and higher education. Recommendations to school boards of education to discontinue courses in German were increasingly supported by scholars of French and Spanish. Modern language study was presented by the profession as part of a fulfillment of the country’s patriotic duty for nation building through political and economic expansion, particularly within North and South America. Within this climate, French and Spanish maintained the general growth in modern language study. World War I had an initial slowing effect on change in modern and classical language study. Appendix A provides a summary. From 1914 and 1921, the percentage of students enrolled in modern languages rose from 48.8 percent to 49.9 percent and in Latin declined from 50.8 percent to 50 percent. These numbers represent a slower but continued trend of overtaking classical language study with modern language. Growth came exclusively from gains in French and Spanish language study, which increased from 12.0 percent to 28.1 percent and 3.7 percent to 20.5 percent, respectively. By 1924, growth in French and Spanish had all but stopped at their 1921 levels while German began a modest comeback, enrolling 2.4 percent (from 1.2 percent

< previous page

page_32

next page >

< previous page

page_33

next page >

Page 33 in 1921) of the student population. This gain further reduced enrollments in Latin to 48.1 percent. Enrollment patterns through 1933 show similar trends. Modern language study made steady gains through the modest growth in French and German. Spanish enrollments fell slightly in terms of percentage but continued to enroll greater numbers of students. This slowing effect on the transition to modern language study also reflects the lack of a cohesive vision for foreign language education in the changing curriculum. Slowed by the implications of a foreign war on the study of individual languages, the profession’s work on reform settled into the safe realm of descriptive reports and of word lists and grammars. The published reports of the Modern Foreign Language Study went largely unnoticed in general education (Childers, 1964, p. 36). The focus on methodology as a means to reach more students in schools proved to be a divisive issue in the profession during the years between two world wars and the Great Depression. Differentiation through pedagogy . Coleman’s 1929 report, The Teaching of Modern Languages in the United States, was more than a description of the state of pedagogy. This work examined traditional goals of language instruction, recognized the limited two-year course of study offered by schools or elected by students, and evaluated the results of this instruction. Weighing this evidence, Coleman suggested a pedagogical approach designed to teach as many students as possible within the constraints of the education system. These proposals represent a form of differentiation through realignment of the content of modern language courses to an emphasis on reading skills and pedagogy. In the introduction to the report, Coleman recognized the controversy of such an approach: Such an inquiry as that undertaken … could lead to one of three types of results: to a verdict that all is for the best in the best of possible worlds; or to a demonstration that the theories and current practices of some individuals or groups are valid for the country as a whole; or to the disclosure of conditions and of facts hitherto unknown or imperfectly known, on which findings must necessarily be based. Had a study of the material led to either of the first two possibilities, the author of this report would have had a lighter task. He would have had only to proclaim “All is well!” or to point to paths already defined as safe roads in the wilderness. (Coleman, 1929, p. ix–x) The Coleman Report identified several challenges to modern language education. In terms of the objectives of instruction, divergence from the goals of the Cardinal Principles was clearly laid out. Skill development was of top priority. Objectives met either an “immediate” or “ultimate” purpose. Immediate objectives met the direct aims of classroom instruction and included the development of the four skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Ultimate objectives, on the other hand, described the potential benefits as the result of successful modern language study and related to the goals of the Cardinal Principles. Examples of these objectives included

< previous page

page_33

next page >

< previous page

page_34

next page >

Page 34 (Objective A) the ability to read with ease and enjoyment, (Objective B) the ability to communicate with natives of another country, (Objective J) development of literary and artistic appreciation, and (Objective L) a clearer understanding of the history and nature of language (Coleman, pp. 16–17). Coleman concluded that the attainment of many of these ultimate objectives could not be validly tested and suggested that the list be shortened (p. 17). Those that related most to general education goals were not included on this shortened list. The report stated that there was no evidence that the study of modern languages offered an advantage over other subject disciplines for the attainment of such objectives of social value (p. 17). These excluded objectives included the following: Objective I. Increased ability to understand the ideals, standards, and traditions of foreign peoples and Americans of foreign birth Objective J. Development of literary and artistic appreciation Objective K. Development of a more adequate realization of the relation of the individual to society Objective M. Increased ability to discern relationships and make comparisons between subjects allied in form and content Objective N. Development of habits of sustained effort Objective P. Development of social adaptability through increased personal contacts with natives of other countries After a discussion of these objectives, the first part of the report then focused on the limited length of study in junior and secondary high schools. Using data from earlier reports of the Modern Language Study, it was established that 88.4 percent of modern language enrollments are found at the beginning level (years one and two) (p. 25). Enrollment trends in junior high suggested that only 34 percent of these students continue study of a modern language in ninth grade (p.39). Finally, the attainment of the objectives of modern language instruction was presented. It was concluded that there were moderate vocational needs for modern languages but that limited skill development diminished their usefulness. It reemphasized that a two-year sequence of study was to be expected for the majority of students and that this sequence lessened the ability to develop usable skills. It noted that teachers had less confidence of attaining immediate objectives (skill development) than ultimate objectives through their instruction and that professional focus should work to develop better methods for usable skill development. Based on these findings, the report proposed changes to the content of modern language courses to be delivered through a “reading” method. The goal was to directly address the poor results of attainment, which reflected a belief in education that “no very great value can accrue from any subject in cases in which a large number of students fail to attain the valid and desir-

< previous page

page_34

next page >

< previous page

page_35

next page >

Page 35 able classroom objectives” (p. 111). A review of the main characteristics of the reading method resembles a passive form of grammar-translation: 1. Early pronunciation practice to encourage appropriate pronunciation in silent reading 2. Grammar instruction for recognition 3. Restricted use of oral use of the modern language for pronunciation and to test reading comprehension 4. Translation into English preferred over the translation into the modern language 5. Readings introducing words and idioms according to lists prepared for previous Modern Language Study reports 6. Graded vocabulary carefully introduced by rewriting work by foreign authors (Childers, p. 38; Coleman, 1929) The influence of this method on foreign language education for the next two decades has been described as one “insuring monolingualism” (Bernhardt, 1999, p. 49). It rejected many of the ideas of general education reform at time that would have supported broader pragmatic use of a modern language and instead focused on limited and passive skill development. As a form of differentiation, pedagogy in foreign language education proved incompatible with progressive education reform. Differentiation through beginning-level study. Foreign language general studies courses were not offered on a national scale as in mathematics and the sciences. Beginning-level foreign language study, however, took on some of the traits of differentiation. During the 1920s and 1930s, greater numbers of adolescents were enrolling in and graduating from high school. From 1920 to 1938, high school graduates as a percentage of the 17-year-old population grew from 16.8 percent to 45.6 percent (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975, p. 207). A smaller percentage of these students were completing more than two years of foreign language study, however. From 1905 to 1924, the proportion of high school students enrolled in beginning-level courses increased from 69 percent to 87.4 percent and again to 89.5 percent in 1933 (see Appendices E, F, and G). Coleman proposed that this trend be addressed through pedagogy. The growth in beginning-level study during this period suggests two interpretations that point towards a form of differentiation. The first suggests that rather than a conscious effort by the foreign language profession to change course structures to include general or specialized courses, the beginning level assumed a de facto general studies purpose in the curriculum. Enrollment increases at the beginning level represented trends towards the study of modern languages over classical with a reduced emphasis on college preparation and an increased emphasis on general studies for life after high school. This interpretation is supported by the fact that foreign language enrollments increased while the entrance rate into higher education

< previous page

page_35

next page >

< previous page

page_36

next page >

Page 36 remained stable at approximately one-third of graduates through the 1930s (Johnson, Rice, and Foster, 1958, p. 77). In other words, more students were studying a little foreign language without necessarily entering college after graduation. A second complimentary interpretation is that the core grouping of students who had traditionally enrolled in foreign language for college preparatory purposes changed little during these years. Changes in the overall percentage and enrollments by level represent the influx of students into secondary education who were not college-bound and who enrolled in a shorter, two-year foreign language sequence. This second interpretation is supported by the fact that from 1905 to 1933, the rate of growth in raw enrollments in public high schools far exceeded the growth in raw enrollments in foreign language courses (see Appendix A). During this period, high school enrollments increased from 722,692 to 5,620,626, representing a 678 percent increase. Foreign language enrollments increased from 587,366 to 1,611,744, representing a 174 percent increase. Coleman recognized this rush of new students into high schools for the purpose of general studies and its effect on foreign language: There appears to prevail in public school circles the judgment, implied, if nowhere definitely formulated, that the normal course in a foreign language, ancient or modern, should last only two years if the student’s general secondary education is to be provided properly. This probably represents in part a reaction against the extent to which foreign language study formerly filled up the program, and in part results from more recent tendencies in curriculum revision in behalf of the large groups of young people who formerly did not enter the secondary school. (Coleman, 1929, p. 27) This form of differentiation did not represent a purposeful professional agenda but rather the result of change in general education. Secondary education was changing in ways that halted the dominance of foreign language in the curriculum. The shift in enrollments to the beginning level was to continue unabated through the next two decades. CONCLUSION Leading up to the World War II, foreign language in the high school curriculum held a precarious position. Its traditional purpose as a college preparatory subject had been weakened by dynamic changes in secondary and higher education. More adolescents enrolled in foreign language, but a smaller proportion of the high school population studied languages and in an increasingly shorter learning sequence. The profession’s response had failed to take advantage of the opportunities of growth and change in public

< previous page

page_36

next page >

< previous page

page_37

next page >

Page 37 secondary education. Efforts failed to produce expanded course offerings or changes in course structure that were consistent with general education reform. The place and purpose of foreign language in the curriculum would be further challenged in the next period of reform as a premium was placed on life after high school.

< previous page

page_37

next page >

< previous page

page_38

next page >

page_38

next page >

Page 38 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_39

next page >

Page 39 4 World War II and the Cold War: The Fall and Rise of Foreign Language, Part I The generalized effect of World War I and the Great Depression on education was support for reform driven by the needs of learners and society rather than by traditions within the subject disciplines. The Cardinal Principles embodied this change as this reform was carried out through the 1920s and 1930s. Change in foreign language education came in several ways: a reduction of high school population enrolled, a shift towards modern language study, an expansion of the beginning level through increased general population enrollments, and a narrowing of skills focus through a new pedagogy. These trends would continue through the 1940s as the social effects of World War II further influenced reform of the secondary school curriculum. Foreign language would reach its lowest level of support in education in post-war America, only to rise again in stature through the threat of a cold war and the contribution of foreign language study to national defense in the late 1950s and the 1960s. This rise would be accomplished as education reform returned to a focus on academic disciplines and as college entrance increased from returning military personnel and high school graduates. The evolving high school curriculum continued to reflect change in the place and purpose of foreign language. EDUCATION FOR ALL AMERICAN YOUTH: LIFE ADJUSTMENT AND THE FALL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE During the post-World War I period, progressivism in education remained a driving curricular force (Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 213). It shed its

< previous page

page_39

next page >

< previous page

page_40

next page >

Page 40 political and social elements to stress the functionality of occupational and personal needs in education and life skills needed upon graduation (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 275). Leading up to World War II, high schools increasingly offered courses in vocational education to help prepare students to contribute to the war effort. Although clear college preparatory and vocational tracks had emerged in the secondary school curriculum, there was a concern for those students who were served by neither program. The fundamental ideas of the Cardinal Principles were reinforced by a “Life Adjustment” reform movement intended to assure students health, family, citizenship, and democracy in their postsecondary lives (Angus and Mirel, 1995, p. 297). Life Adjustment Reform in Education In the immediate post-World War II years, reform in secondary education began to focus on the large proportion of students served neither by the college preparatory curriculum nor by vocational studies. This focus, termed “life adjustment,” sought to prepare “all American youth to live democratically with satisfaction to themselves and profit to society as home members, workers, and citizens” (Beckner and Cornett, 1972, p. 41). The curriculum continued to expand and adjust as subjects were added or realigned according to these values of social usefulness and the ability to meet these needs as interpreted locally (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 276). A major reason for this life adjustment emphasis was a decline in high school enrollments during World War II. More than one million students were lost to military enlistment and the need for labor during this period. The curriculum was viewed as one means for keeping youth in school (Kliebard, 1995, p. 207). Defining what this situation meant in concrete curricular terms was not as forthcoming. Charles A. Prosser, a key figure in the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act, provided a rallying point for life adjustment reform in an invited address to the U.S. Office of Education’s Division of Vocational Education. The oft-cited “Prosser resolution” stated that traditional college preparatory and vocational tracks served only 20 percent of the high school population respectively but that the needs of the remaining 60 percent were not served by the curriculum (Angus and Mirel, 1995, p. 297; Kliebard, 1995, p. 112; Willis et al., 1993, p. 271). This majority of students were left without a general education serving specific goals. By means of a curriculum that prepared all youth for citizenship, family life, and employment, life adjustment would meet the needs of this majority in the middle and help to reestablish the trend towards universal secondary education interrupted by the war (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 80). A “general track” in the high school curriculum—one that served this newly identified group of students —included new courses.1 Courses appearing in the curriculum during this reform period included those focused on

< previous page

page_40

next page >

< previous page

page_41

next page >

Page 41 the problems facing adolescents in the their lives and future lives as adults (for example, “basic living,” “senior problems,” “growth towards maturity,” “boy-girl relationships,” “learning for work,” and “preparation for marriage”) (Kliebard, 1995, pp. 218–219). Subjects were combined in some school districts to better reflect the realities of life (for example, English and social studies into the course “common learning” and “Problems of American Life”) (Angus and Mirel, 1999, pp. 75–76). Other subjects were modified to reflect occupations appealing to students upon graduation (for example, the continued trend toward English into “business English” and general math into “business math”) (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 276). Appendix F demonstrates general growth and change in these specific subject areas through the 1940s. Social studies and business continued enrollment growth through broad course offerings. Home economics, music, and physical education grew to occupy a greater proportion of the high school curriculum. The traditional academic subjects of English, math, and science maintained their levels of enrollment during this period. The substantial losses in foreign language reflected doubts as to its contribution to the goals of life adjustment. Life Adjustment and Foreign Language The conditions for foreign language in the curriculum during life adjustment were not favorable. A major purpose of foreign languages was identified as serving college entrance and thus contributed to the education of a small minority of students. The majority of students enrolled in neither college preparatory nor vocational programs required a more generalized form of study if foreign language was to contribute to their education. Among subject disciplines, the study of languages is distinguished as being singled out for reduction and challenged as irrelevant beyond general studies for introductory purposes (Childers, 1964, p. 38). Such views were expressed as early as 1940 in What the High Schools Ought to Teach , a report published by the American Council on Education. Developed by the Special Committee on the Secondary School Curriculum for the American Youth, which included Prosser, this report is considered an early document outlining the need for life adjustment in secondary schools (American Council on Education, 1940; Willis, et al., 1993, p. 271). It included a historical summary of the development of traditional academic subjects, curricular recommendations, and criticisms of conventional academic subjects. A major reform theme was that change must not only include new subjects but also a re-examination and a critique of traditional subjects (Willis et al., 1993, pp. 281–282). General secondary education was described in this report as consisting of new courses and general studies courses in traditional subject disciplines that could meet the needs of all students, prepare them for “intelligent citizenship

< previous page

page_41

next page >

< previous page

page_42

next page >

Page 42 and for the duties of home life,” and serve as an initial introduction for the first two years of high school and for possible continued study in high school or college. This general studies program was distinguished from what was then termed “special education,” which would serve the interests of advanced-level academic or specialized vocational study (American Council on Education, 1940, pp. 10– 11). In regards to foreign language, the report echoed the findings by Coleman in 1929, stating that the degree of mastery of a language in the present curriculum was “slender and doubtful” (American Council on Education, 1940, p. 29). It acknowledged a conflict between foreign language and general education: Teachers of foreign language make many claims for their subjects. They say that no young person ever has any clear idea of the structure of language until he has studied other nations, it is said, in order to gain a sympathetic understanding of strange culture. If these statements and other claims of language teachers are accepted, and foreign languages continue to consume the time that has been traditionally given to them in the past, it will be very difficult to build up a program of general education to include the new courses that have been recommended as desirable. (American Council on Education, 1940, p. 29) As a solution, “general language” courses were proposed that would meet the goals of language study without requiring the traditional time allotted to it in the curriculum. These courses would replace traditional foreign language study for the majority of students so that they could benefit from general education studies. Such courses could be taught in English and include the basics elements of a foreign language that encompassed its literature and culture. Support for such general foreign language courses also came from a Harvard University report on general education published in 1945 and circulated widely among institutions of higher education and public school superintendents (Childers, 1964, p. 38). The report, General Education in a Free Society, recommended removing foreign language from the secondary school core curriculum, reserving its study for the benefit of gifted students, and replacing it with general studies courses consisting of foreign literature in translation (Childers, 1964, p. 39). Courses in general foreign language became largely a phenomenon of junior high schools during this period. They took the form of exploratory courses, which introduced elements of the language and culture of one or more foreign languages to a broad student population (Childers, 1964, p. 39). Such courses still predominate in junior high and middle schools to this day—an issue in contemporary foreign language education reform discussed later in this book. General foreign language courses in high schools appeared for the first time in enrollment surveys in 1933 and 1948 (see Appendix E). The 1948 survey found that 1.1 percent of public high school students studying foreign language were

< previous page

page_42

next page >

< previous page

page_43

next page >

Page 43 enrolled in such courses. This value is an appreciable increase considering that German accounted for only 3.6 percent of enrollments in this year. Several publications in the early 1950s summarized federal initiatives and the proposed and resultant curricular change that would affect the place and purpose of foreign language under life adjustment (Douglass, 1952; Hull, 1949; Zeran, 1953). One such source, Secondary Education for Life Adjustment of American Youth (Douglass, 1952), identified the traditional college preparatory purpose of foreign language study as having a detrimental effect on the capability of this discipline to maintain relevance in the changing curriculum. The primacy of college entrance meant the relegation of the need for skill development in a language to secondary status (p. 348). The prominence of college entrance led to an elective, rather than required, standing for foreign language in the curriculum. This situation occurred for two reasons. First, the majority of high school students would not enroll in higher education and had no immediate need for its study. Second, only one-third of colleges and universities required foreign language for college entrance, and its requirement for degrees in higher education was being reduced (p. 349). To address this elective status and to serve the needs of students, it was recommended that the college preparatory mission be replaced with the needs of students in their social, vocational, or cultural world and the general education aims of American secondary education (p. 350). Suggestions for this transition centered on the familiar recommendations for new course offerings to be delivered in English by foreign language instructors. These included cultural orientation and civilization courses, courses in world literature in translation, special commercial courses, courses for travelers, and introductory courses termed “general language” (p. 352). It is interesting to note that many of these suggested offerings could be included in a school’s business studies, language arts, and social studies programs and thus replace foreign language altogether. This third alternative to college preparation and language skills development—new course offerings—held little promise for strengthening the position of foreign language in its traditional discipline structure within the curriculum. Although the Douglass text dedicates several pages to proposed changes in foreign language, it was standard practice for many publications of this time to simply leave out suggestions for foreign language. Hull’s (1949) Primer of Life Adjustment Education and Zeran’s (1953) Life Adjustment Education in Action outline steps for programmatic change and dedicate entire chapters to traditional academic subjects and new curricular offerings while bearing no mention of the study of language. The focus of education reform had shifted further away from the needs of the college-bound as reformers struggled with the ever-growing popularity of comprehensive general secondary education. Decreasing study trends and rising college entrance. College-level study of foreign language was also affected by this reform as the trend in the elimination of foreign language entrance requirements continued during this period

< previous page

page_43

next page >

< previous page

page_44

next page >

Page 44 increased. Between 1947 and 1953, 46 of the largest institutions eliminated foreign language study as an exit, or graduation, requirement for a B.A. degree (Childers, 1964, pp. 39–40). An influx of former military personnel into higher education after World War II and rising numbers of high school graduates entering higher education increased enrollments and coincided with continued comprehensive reform in colleges and universities. The increase in high school graduates entering higher education and reduced high school enrollments in foreign language was a new trend that seemed to contradict the historical college preparatory mission. From 1930 to 1940, the percentage of the 17-year-old population graduated from high school increased from 29.0 percent to 50.8 percent (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975). By 1950, it had reached 59.0 percent (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975). In the years leading up to World War II, the percentage of high school graduates entering higher education decreased from 45.1 percent in 1931 to 27.8 percent in 1943 (Clemens Johnson, Rice, and Foster, 1958). By the post-war years, however, this percentage posted steady increases—rising to 50.7 percent in 1953 (Clemens Johnson, Rice, and Foster, 1958). During this period, the study of foreign languages in high school reached its lowest point in history. By 1948, only 21.9 percent of the high school population studied a foreign language (see Appendix A). The length of study shortened to such a degree that 91.5 percent of these enrollments were found at the beginning level (see Appendix E). The percentage of the entire adolescent population studying foreign language also decreased from 17.1 percent in 1933 to 13.6 percent in 1948 (see Appendix B). The fall of foreign language during this period of education reform proved that college entrance was no longer sufficient to support the study of language in the high school curriculum. Continuing rise of Spanish. In terms of individual languages, an interesting transition took place. Between 1933 and 1948, Spanish emerged as the highest enrolled foreign language, surpassing even Latin. While all other modern and classical languages lost their share of the percentage of enrollments, Spanish increased by nearly 20 percent from 17.4 percent to 37.5 percent (see Appendix A). This rise in Spanish has been attributed to several factors. Herman (2002) suggests that Spanish was successfully marketed by its constituents in the foreign language profession as a patriotic study of language for political and economic influence in the Western hemisphere. Childers (1964) describes the influence of World War II as one that refocused trade from Europe to Central and South America and a resultant need for Spanish language and cultural studies to support national and federal commercial initiatives (pp. 18–19). The coinciding facts that Spanish-speaking countries were geographically close to the United States, that this was a modern language, and that it represented both political and economic gains most likely contributed to its rise after World War II.

< previous page

page_44

next page >

< previous page

page_45

next page >

Page 45 General studies and the fall . By the late 1940s, foreign language had clearly been pushed to the periphery of American secondary education. Within four decades, the study of language had shifted from the primary focus of reform during the period of the Committee of Ten to rarely a mention, if not indifference, during life adjustment. General secondary education for all American youth meant that subject disciplines were no longer the focus of the curriculum. Rather, it was the needs of learners and society that would be served by these disciplines. This statement was true, whether it was for preparation for life or college entrance. The traditional college-entrance purpose for foreign language study had been weakened during the reforms of progressive and life adjustment education. Change was around the corner in the form of national defense, however. Soon, the cold war and a renewed emphasis on academic knowledge would initiate new education reform—one that defined our nation’s needs in terms favorable for the study of foreign languages. EDUCATION FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE: THE RISE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE WITH THE COLD WAR As the beginnings of World War II loomed over the country, a realization that the nation’s education system could not produce sufficient numbers of individuals with competent foreign language skills was quickly addressed by the military. Two months before the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, the navy established intensive Japanese language programs at Harvard and the University of California (Childers, 1964, p. 42). During this same year, the Army and Air Force established a joint program in conversational Spanish and Portuguese. Several other programs were established throughout the war to supplement training programs for native speakers who worked with military personnel. These language programs had in common a focus on listening and speaking skills. They were intended to quickly address the insufficient results of the Coleman’s reading method by producing a large cadre with needed language skills for the war effort. It would not be until well after the end of the war that the method of teaching foreign language for military purposes would be reformulated for the education system. Change in the way the nation viewed the place and purpose of foreign language in the curriculum had already taken root, however. As early as 1943 in the Modern Language Journal, Tharp wrote of a government proposal for international relations to be part of life-adjustment education and ways in which foreign language study could serve this goal (Tharp, 1943, pp. 329–330). A counter movement to the progressive changes in education had always existed and supported foreign language as a valued school subject. “Essentialists” in education, those who supported the traditional subject matter curriculum, had opposed the differentiation and

< previous page

page_45

next page >

< previous page

page_46

next page >

Page 46 expansion of the curriculum that occurred during progressive reforms and remained a force in education (Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 213). National defense and the academic curriculum were merging towards new reforms. The oft-cited launching of the first “sputnik,” or satellite in Russian, by the Soviet Union in 1957 is credited as spurring the nation into a new era of education reform. Reform was well underway before this date, however. In the early 1950s, the Modern Language Association had initiated a study on the status of modern language instruction in the United States with support from the U.S. Commissioner of Education (Tanner, 1971, p. 273). The resultant 1954 publication, The National Interest and Foreign Languages by William Riley Parker, executive secretary of the foreign language section of the MLA, linked national security to foreign language study. Similar studies were conducted in math and science (Angus and Mirel, 1995, p. 313). The launching of Sputnik served as an organizing symbol of the nation’s call for improved national defense based on education reform emphasizing technological and international studies. The federal government was set to respond with funding and leadership in this reform. National Defense Education Act of 1958 The passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958 marked a renewed emphasis on the academic subjects of foreign language, math, and science. Federal funds were tied to national defense in the wake of the Cold War, and subject area specialists—rather than education specialists—were called upon to provide leadership in curriculum reform (Kliebard, 1995, pp. 228–229). Financial aid was provided to states for the improvement of instruction in schools in these academic subjects deemed vital to national interests. Financial assistance was provided to undergraduate and graduate students who pursued related degrees. Funding also allowed for the purchase of instructional technology to improve the delivery of courses in vital subject areas. Vocational education received support to improve the education of technicians. Finally, educational guidance and counseling received support in an effort to steer students towards careers in these subject areas, particularly those who demonstrated an aptitude and talent in foreign language, math, and science (Angus and Mirel, 1995, p. 298; Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 282). Beyond national defense, three trends in education contributed to this renewed focus on academic subjects. First, higher education was beginning to tighten entrance requirements after several decades of growth. The scope of higher education became increasingly oriented towards mass education with the passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, or GI Bill, in 1944 and increasing enrollments by recently graduated high school seniors. Enrollments in colleges and universities grew by more than one million students from 1940 to 1950, initiating a trend in intense growth over the next

< previous page

page_46

next page >

< previous page

page_47

next page >

Page 47 three decades (U.S. Department of Education, 1998, p. 195). Higher education was dealing with many of the problems of mass education that secondary education had experienced in prior decades: students from non-traditional backgrounds, educational needs beyond liberal education, and a pressing need for universal public education (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 268; Willis, et al., 1993, pp. 323–324). Entrance and graduation requirements were re-examined for how they served a renewed focus on academics. A second contributing trend was the recent mobilization of the education system for the war effort (Taylor, 1969, p. 132). This experience enabled education reform to focus on national defense, much as it had during World War II with participation at all institutional levels. This experience would serve as a model for the mass introduction of new methodologies and technologies into education in the late 1950s and through the 1960s. Finally, there was growing criticism of progressive education by essentialists (Tanner, 1971, p. 271). Essentialism emphasized traditional academic subjects and the authority of the teacher and scholars of these disciplines to influence the school curriculum (Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 213). Echoing antiprogressivism essentialists of the 1930s, who advocated a curriculum based on traditional academic subjects, popular critics of the 1950s included military and nationally known figures of social commentary in addition to representatives in education (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 277). These critics argued that students engaged in general studies were unnecessarily distanced from academic subjects when, in reality, many were capable and could benefit from more demanding study in these disciplines. Arguments also pointed to increasing college enrollments and the inadequate preparation for college study of high school graduates by a curriculum based on general studies. Critics argued that society and the future of the nation were sacrificed by the high number of high school students graduating without the skills and intellectual training from the study of traditional academic subjects (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 278). Two leading figures in the shift to academic subjects were Arthur Bestor and James B. Conant. Bestor, a professor of history at the University of Illinois, is credited as a leading voice in essentialism. The publication of journal articles and books, such as Educational Wastelands in 1953 and The Restoration of Learning in 1955, outlined a vision of secondary education reform centered on five years each of science, math, history, English, and the study of two foreign languages for the intellectual training of American youth (Kliebard, 1995, p. 222; Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 244; Tanner, 1971, p. 272). The case for curriculum reform was strengthened by “the Conant report” of 1959. James B. Conant was a former Harvard president, had served on the Educational Policies Commission of the NEA, and was ambassador to West Germany on the front of the Cold War when he secured funds from the Carnegie Corporation to study American secondary education (Angus and Mirel, 1999,

< previous page

page_47

next page >

< previous page

page_48

next page >

Page 48 p. 112). The American High School Today , published in 1959, became a best seller and received widespread attention in education circles and in the popular media alike (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 113). In this book, Conant emphasized the need to educate all students but specifically focused on the gifted and talented and their lack of adequate learning opportunities (Ornstein and Levine, 1989, p. 511). His recommendations supported many of the goals of the NDEA. Specific to foreign language, he recommended beginning, articulated, sequential foreign language study in junior high school and, when possible, as early as elementary school and dividing foreign language (and math and science) courses into two tiers for students of high and lesser ability (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 115; Tanner, 1971, p. 272). The focus on traditional academic subjects culminated in the passage of the NDEA in 1958. Subject area specialists (linguists, mathematicians, and scientists) would play an integral role in curricular change during this reform period. This legislation resulted in millions of dollars of federal support for the development and improvement of instruction. It supported the work of specialists in select subject disciplines and served to influence the secondary school curriculum for the next two decades. The National Science Foundation led efforts in mathematics and sciences to develop courses for secondary education. Scholars organized by groups, such as the Physical Sciences Study Committee and the School Mathematics Study Group, brought a college and university focus to curricular development in secondary education. Educational psychologists such as Jerome Bruner provided guidance and a framework for the delivery of instruction to younger students (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, pp. 282–283). The study of foreign languages would be supported by similar efforts in the next decade. NDEA and Foreign Language In the early 1950s, the MLA—with support from the U.S. commissioner of education—conducted a study on the status of modern language instruction in the United States. The resultant 1954 publication, The National Interest and Foreign Languages by William Riley Parker, executive secretary of the foreign language section of the MLA, linked national security to foreign language study (Tanner, 1971, p. 273). A number of recommendations proposed by Riley were eventually included in the NDEA. Millions of dollars of funding were allocated towards the improvement and establishment of foreign language programs in elementary and secondary schools. Language specialists were hired to develop instructional programs, disseminate them, and train teachers in their use in the classroom. Methodology focused on the development of listening and speaking skills to directly address the aftermath of the Coleman Report, replacing an emphasis on passive skills with active skills. Change in methodology. The mobilization of resources to provide military personnel with foreign language training during World War II served as a

< previous page

page_48

next page >

< previous page

page_49

next page >

Page 49 model for the funding of mass foreign language education for national defense. Nowhere was this link stronger than in methodology. The Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP), or Army Method, began in 1943 with the goal of developing listening, speaking, and cultural skills over a 36-week period (Childers, 1964, p. 44). The success of this program during the wartime years was publicized in the press and found favorable reviews in many journals of the foreign language profession (Childers, 1964, p. 46). By the late 1950s, education reform turned to traditional academic subjects as one means to sustain the technological advances and military victories of World War II. Innovations to foreign language methodology attributed to the ASTP began to enter mass public education. A “new key” to language teaching suggested a developmental sequence in second-language learning based upon the success of the ASTP (Childers, 1964, p.48). Listening and speaking were taught early at the beginning level as a direct reflection of first language learning and everyday language needs. The development of reading and writing skills came later after patterns of the language were learned. Grammar was not directly taught but was introduced through consistent practice of dialogues presenting structures in their natural use in speech (Childers, 1964, p. 48). This new approach was modeled in the audio-lingual method (ALM) of instruction. It addressed many of the criticisms of the reading focus proposed in the Coleman Report. In particular, the stress on active use of the language and a reduction of direct grammar instruction or adherence to a grammatical syllabus helped to emphasize everyday language use for communication. Several forces came together in the early 1960s that contributed to the wide dissemination and use of ALM in schools over the next two decades. Structural linguistics and behavioral psychology provided a complimentary theoretical base to support this new method on the basis of science. Advances in technology allowed for the standardized mass education of students in new language laboratories. Passage of the NDEA funded the development of these instructional programs by specialists, large-scale production of instructional materials, the purchase of language laboratory and audio equipment by schools and higher education, and national programs for the pre- and in-service training of teachers to delivery instruction via this method and new technologies (Hancock and Scebold, 1999, pp. 4–6; Tanner, 1971, p. 273). The growth in popularity of ALM, NDEA funding, and an academic focus on curriculum reform coincided with rising foreign language enrollments and the expansion of languagelearning opportunities in the nation’s schools. Structural and enrollment changes. The early 1960s marked a decade of “expansion and optimism” for foreign language in the secondary school curriculum (Hancock and Scebold, 1999, p. 8). New learning opportunities appeared in several ways to alter the traditional structure of course offerings. The development of instructional programs and the preparation of teachers

< previous page

page_49

next page >

< previous page

page_50

next page >

Page 50 in languages deemed vital to Cold War national defense, such as Chinese and Russian, grew as funding and interest in their study peaked (Tanner, 1971, p. 275). Russian language enrollments in public high schools, for example, rose from 4,055 in 1958 to 26,716 in 1965 (see Appendix C). Advanced-level language courses and advanced placement (AP) courses for students continuing into higher education were established and grew in number and first appeared in the 1960 national enrollment survey (Childers, 1962). These courses represented a form of differentiation reflecting, in part, Bestor’s and Conant’s calls for greater educational options for the academic gifted and talented. Length of study also increased during this period as a reflection of an academic focus and growing opportunities to enroll in advanced courses. From 1948 to 1963, the proportion of enrollments at the advanced level increased from 8.5 percent to 13.4 percent (see Appendices H and I). The proportion of secondary school students enrolled in foreign language grew with national support for language study and its status as a fundamental subject in the curriculum. Reversing a downward trend that had begun in the 1920s, the percentage of high school students enrolled in foreign language rose from 21.9 percent in 1948 to 24.1 percent in 1958 and peaked at 32.2 percent in 1963 (see Appendix A). The percentage of the entire adolescent population enrolled in foreign language rose to what represented a historical high at the time of 25.7 percent and remained at this level until 1970 (see Appendix B). The reform period of NDEA represents a turning point in foreign language education as unprecedented numbers of adolescents studied languages as a direct result of educational policy. By the 1960s, increases in the adolescent population studying foreign language could no longer be attributed solely to rising general enrollments in public high schools. In 1964, 90.2 percent of adolescents attended secondary schools, of which 89.4 percent were enrolled in public high schools (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975, pp. 368–369). Public high schools would continue to have stable enrollments at these rates through the end of the century. New student populations entering secondary education could not explain any fall or rise in foreign language enrollments from this point. Through the 1960s, high school graduation and college entrance rates continued to rise, reflecting the academic focus on the secondary school curriculum and preparation for higher education. By 1969, 77.1 percent of 17-year-olds had graduated from high school (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, p. 124) while the rate of college entrance reached 55.4 percent (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, p. 215). Spanish continued to be the foreign language of choice for most of these college-bound students. Other modern languages also made gains during this period. Modern language as an academic subject . The renewed academic focus on secondary education reform did not support the study of classical languages

< previous page

page_50

next page >

< previous page

page_51

next page >

Page 51 as it had under the Committee of Ten. From 1962 to 1970, Latin enrollments collapsed to single digits while German and Spanish gained and French remained stable (see Appendix A). Latin fell from a 22.7 percent to 7.0 percent enrollment rate. Increases in French (32.2 percent to 32.6 percent), German (6.8 percent to 10.9 percent), and Spanish (36.8 percent to 47.9 percent) during this period benefited from losses in Latin. By 1970, 93 percent of enrollments were in modern languages. The reform period of NDEA had brought an academic focus to the curriculum and an awareness of the need for foreign language skills to serve national interests. Unlike the overtly academic recommendations proposed by the Committee of Ten, ones that were protested by many in education from their very introduction, NDEA had a greater purpose with wider public appeal. Modern language study served both the causes of national defense and academic preparation for higher education. In doing so, it continued to reflect utilitarian purposes of foreign language study—a distinction that was first proposed for the academy system during the early formative period of secondary education. Modern languages had now nearly replaced classical for the purpose of college preparation as rates of entrance into higher education rose. The long history of Latin in secondary education had run its course. CONCLUSION: A GREATER ROLE FOR SPANISH IN THE CURRICULUM Foreign language in the secondary school curriculum during NDEA reforms was in a position to serve greater numbers of students for broader purposes. The final shift from classical to modern languages was led by the study of Spanish during this period of renewed emphasis on traditional academic subjects. Beginning with the 1909 national survey, enrollments in Spanish had steadily increased over the next six decades as other languages, classical and modern, experienced sporadic growth or loss. Spanish was no longer the utilitarian language that emerged during life adjustment for economic and general studies purposes. It had become the primary language for the traditional college entrance mission. Unlike Latin, Spanish language study embodied the multiple goals of secondary education. Spanish had experienced a pace of growth that distinguished itself from all other foreign languages. It would continue this growth and influence perceptions of how language contributes to the curriculum into the second half of the century. NOTE 1. The United States Department of Education presently defines educational tracks in secondary schools as belonging to one of three types: academic, general, or vocational. This general track has its roots in the period of curricular expansion beginning in the 1920s.

< previous page

page_51

next page >

< previous page

page_52

next page >

page_52

next page >

Page 52 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_53

next page >

Page 53 5 Equality in Education and the Global Economy: The Fall and Rise of Foreign Language, Part II By the late 1960s, education reform based on national defense was losing popular support. A growing movement against the war in Vietnam and pressing social issues of equality contributed to what is described as a pendulum swing in education reform back to progressivism (Ravitch, 1995b, p. 235). Education reform stressed access to education, greater choices and relevance in curricular offerings, and career education. Federal funding in support of foreign language education began to decrease as it was funneled into other initiatives or reduced due to a slowing national economy. Many of the language programs that were established under NDEA, such as instruction in grades K–8, had not become self-supportive and were discontinued as funding and public support decreased. The audio-lingual method, a form of instruction that had successfully served the military during World War II and was enthusiastically transformed, funded, and disseminated under the NDEA, also proved disappointing in public education. Enrollments in foreign language dropped sharply through the 1970s to match historic lows. Despite falling enrollments, a legacy of NDEA was the continued enrollments at advanced levels of instruction through the 1970s. A greater proportion of students took advantage of advanced-level course offerings established a decade earlier, and more students were studying non-traditional foreign languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Russian. Just as lowering academic standards were blamed for a crisis in national defense in the 1950s, by the late 1970s and early 1980s, growing criticism had linked failures in education to America’s falling status in the global economy. Several federally and privately sponsored reports, most notably A

< previous page

page_53

next page >

< previous page

page_54

next page >

Page 54 Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE], 1983), proposed the reduction of course offerings in schools and a renewed focus on the study of traditional academic subjects. Academic course taking increased dramatically through the 1980s with beginning-level foreign language study benefiting from this change. A consensus vision was also emerging from the foreign language profession that would culminate a decade later in the form of teaching standards. The 1970s and 1980s marked a turning point in the teaching of foreign languages that would set the stage for change and unprecedented growth into the next century. EQUALITY IN EDUCATION AND THE FALL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE Several major social and political issues converged in the 1960s and 1970s to effect change in American society: the Civil Rights movement; the war on poverty; urban riots; a growing youth counter culture; and protests against the war in Vietnam (Angus and Mirel, 1995, p. 298; Guthrie and Koppich, 1997, p. 306). The shift in public concern from national defense to issues of alienation and equality affected education. Change was reflected in legislation and judicial decisions, curriculum reform, and shifts in federal and state funding. The period in education reform from 1964 to 1975 has been characterized as one of intense efforts to assure the equality of education (Angus and Mirel, 1999, pp. 122–123; Ravitch, 1995a, p. 49). The passage of numerous acts by Congress and Supreme Court decisions during this period reflected not only public interest in equality but also the federal government’s influence on education reform since the passage of the NDEA (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, pp. 296–322). Several Congressional acts either directly affected education or influenced educational policy during this period: the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, the Bilingual Education Act in 1968, Title IX of the Higher Education Act in 1972, and the All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94–142) in 1975. Although the socio-political changes in education focused on equality, change in the curriculum of secondary schools in the early 1960s still had its roots in the previous period of reform (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 314). Curricula, developed by subject-area specialists and committees for math, science, and foreign language, were implemented and delivered in high schools with limited success. These curricula had been developed largely without the participation and input of teachers, administrators, and educational leaders. Such initiatives had stemmed from a distrust of education and were subsequently developed in isolation from it (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, pp. 283 and 314). The failure of curricular reform through traditional subject disciplines additionally contributed to a return to increased course offerings in the

< previous page

page_54

next page >

< previous page

page_55

next page >

Page 55 1960s and 1970s. This differentiation was intended to meet diverse student and societal needs and advocated the accountability of instructional practice and policy (Angus and Mirel, 1999, pp. 135–136). Such reform came under a variety of headings: programmed instruction, individualized instruction, differentiated staffing, behavioral or performance objectives, competency-based instruction, teaching machines, instructional systems, computer-managed instruction, team teaching, behavioral modification, performance contracting, and career education (Angus and Mirel, 1999; Beckner and Cornett, 1972, pp. 43–44). This final reform initiative, career education, was developed and funded under the Presidential administration of Richard M. Nixon in the early 1970s as a means to refocus education policy onto two main tracks in the high school: college preparation and vocation. The shift from funding policies in education under NDEA to those focusing on social issues, equality, and employment was reflected in changes in course taking. Appendix F shows decreased course taking from 1962 to 1973 in subjects that had been direct beneficiaries of NDEA: math, foreign language, and science. During this decade, English, business, and social studies gained as a reflection of the shift in education policy. New courses were added to these subject disciplines, such as ethnic studies, creative writing, and new technologies in the workplace (West, Diodato, and Sandberg, 1984). These new course offerings contributed greatly to gains in these subjects. Foreign Language in the Era of Equality Many of the education reforms initiated under NDEA in the 1960s continued to affect foreign language education into the 1970s. The blend of methodology, technology, and prescribed instructional materials continued to have a mass presence in schools in the form of audio-lingual method (ALM) programs. More students were taking advantage of advanced-level foreign language courses extending learning beyond the traditional two years. The goal to produce an army of language learners for national defense did not continue into the new era of education reform, however. Enrollments in foreign language declined to match historic lows of the 1940s. Besides funding reductions and a general shift in the purpose and goals of education reform, a growing dissatisfaction with the results of ALM prompted the profession to develop other approaches and methodologies to deliver instruction. Growing dissatisfaction with ALM . Dissemination and use of instructional programs based on the ALM method had become widespread by the 1970s. Several aspects of foreign language education had come together to focus on this method with the result of its broad use in schools: its theoretical framework in structural linguistics and behavioral psychology represented modern thought in these sciences; NDEAfunded pedagogical institutes trained teachers in its procedures and techniques; and commercial textbook series

< previous page

page_55

next page >

< previous page

page_56

next page >

Page 56 and language laboratory equipment and materials were funded by NDEA and commercially distributed across the country (Stern, 1983, pp. 464–466). Despite its rapid growth, criticism began to mount as claims for the advantages of ALM failed to materialize. Childers summarizes this criticism (1964, pp. 60-61). First, advocates of ALM suggested a more rapid rate of language learning. This situation did not occur in the school setting, where many students were less motivated and instruction was paired back from its intensive origins in the Army Method. Moreover, instructors wishing to include a focus on reading and writing skills were offered little in the form of instructional materials and in doing so adversely affected tenets of this method that purported to lead to rapid language learning. Second, many of the extremes of this method, such as a pre-reading period without the use of a textbook, a limited use of English, heavy emphasis on repetitive drills, and the absence of grammar instruction appealed to a narrow scope of learning styles in students and rejected the benefits of other pedagogical approaches. Finally, cultural instruction emphasized topics of daily life (referred to as “low culture” in the professional literature) for language development rather than the cultural achievements associated with the language (termed “high culture”). This transition was difficult for teachers who had traditionally focused on the great works in literature, architecture, and history of the culture of a language. Nowhere was the mismatch between ALM and the realities of educational setting more apparent than at the elementary school level. Millions of dollars had been funneled through the NDEA to establish earlier language learning sequences in K–8 schools. In a comprehensive study of foreign language in the elementary schools conducted by the MLA from 1959 to 1961, the inability of these programs to contribute towards language proficiency was systemically outlined as a series of education-related problems (Alkonis and Brophy, 1961). It was not that children could not or should not learn languages. It was the inappropriate means for delivery of this instruction through programs and methodology that was not adapted to the realities of the learners (such as their developmental level) and limits of the school system at the elementary school level. New methodologies. By the 1970s, research on the learning and teaching of foreign language had grown from structural and theoretical linguistics to the formal study of second language acquisition (SLA) (Brown, 2001). The development of alternative methods for the teaching of foreign languages drew from this new line of research. Many of the methods of this period directly addressed shortcomings of ALM. “Cognitive code” learning stressed the direct teaching of grammar rules to promote the development of a rule-governed language system in learners. Other methods, such as “community language learning” and “suggestopedia,” addressed the learners’ affective domain (p. 24). Termed “designer” methods (p. 24), these new approaches

< previous page

page_56

next page >

< previous page

page_57

next page >

Page 57 and methods of language instruction represented a break from ALM and an attempt to move beyond behaviorism as the central psychological tenet of language learning to the new science of SLA. Coursetaking changes affecting foreign language. Despite new developments in language pedagogy, enrollments in foreign language dropped significantly during the 1970s as course taking shifted towards general studies. Course taking changes depicted in Appendix F represent an influx of extra curricular and general studies courses into the curriculum by the early 1980s. These non-academic subjects (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 154) drew students away from traditional courses contributing to college preparation and vocational training. These courses included art, home economics, physical education and health studies, and general studies courses in math and science. Extra-curricular courses in language arts and social studies accounted for the greatest shifts in enrollments within the traditional academic subjects. A general studies track, one that served neither the traditional college preparatory nor vocational missions of secondary education, was growing (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 154; Ravitch, 1995a, p. 49). Much like the period of life adjustment in the 1940s, a de-emphasis on foreign language in the curriculum was also reflected in declining college and university requirements during this period. From 1965 to 1982, the percentage of colleges and universities requiring any amount of foreign language study for entrance declined from 33.6 percent to 14.1 percent (Brod and Huber, 1997, p. 41). As an exit or degree requirement in colleges and universities, foreign language declined from 88.9 percent to 47.4 percent (Brod and Huber, p. 41). In contrast with life adjustment, fewer high school students were graduating and entering higher education by the early 1980s. In 1980, high school graduation rates had dropped to 71.4 percent (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, p. 124), and college entrance of these graduates lowered to 49.3 percent (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, p. 215). Falling foreign language enrollments. Appendix A shows a dramatic drop in overall foreign language enrollments from 1963 to 1978. Within a decade, the enrollment rates for all high school students had fallen from 32.2 percent to 22.1 percent—rivaling the previous historic low set in 1948 (21.9 percent). The percentage of the entire adolescent population engaged in foreign language study similarly fell during this period from 25.7 percent to 18.2 percent (see Appendix B). This proportion, however, was a greater proportion than in 1948 (13.6 percent)—a sign that underlying growth in foreign language continued. Despite overall losses in foreign language enrollments with the shift towards general studies, several individual languages gained during the 1970s. In 1974, more than half of all students enrolled in a foreign language studied Spanish (see Appendix A). By 1978, gains in Spanish accounted for 54.2 percent of all enrollments. This trend would continue into the 1990s.

< previous page

page_57

next page >

< previous page

page_58

next page >

Page 58 Other less-traditional foreign languages benefited from increased enrollments in this decade (see Appendix C). Italian and Japanese doubled their enrollments. Chinese and Russian made similar increases until the mid-1970s, when their enrollments began to fall. Finally, enrollments in general foreign language courses, or “general studies,” were recorded in the 1968 enrollment survey—reflecting the broadening curriculum offerings of this period. Continued benefits of NDEA . Several trends directly linked to NDEA continued to benefit foreign language education through the 1970s: increased advanced-level enrollments; interest in less commonly taught foreign languages; and a focus on performance in language use. The percentage of enrollments at the advanced level increased from 13.4 percent in 1963 to 17.9 percent in 1978 (see Appendices I and J). Two phenomena attributed to NDEA explain this increase. First, the availability and support of advanced-level and AP courses grew under the NDEA. In 1963, 1.1 percent of total enrollments were at the highest levels V and VI/AP (see Appendix E). By 1978, this percentage had climbed to 3.5 percent (see Appendix E). Second, the increase in opportunities to study foreign language in middle/junior high schools, also supported under the NDEA, provided a greater number of students to take advantage of longer sequences at the high school level. In 1963, for example, 466,863 students studied Latin, French, German, and Spanish in grades seven and eight (Eshelman and Dershem, 1965). This number increased to 661,631 by the 1978 baseline year (Hammond and Scebold, 1980). Students who had begun foreign language study in seventh and eighth grade from 1963 would be in a better position to take advantage of opportunities to study at advanced levels. The most impressive aspect to increased advanced-level study during this period is the fact that despite a decrease in the total enrollment numbers from 1963 to 1978 (from 3,406,680 to 3,008,808), the total number of students studying at the advanced level increased (from 455,417 to 539,338) (see Appendices I and J). Proportionally, declining numbers of students studying foreign language during the 1970s can be attributed only to the beginning level. Another continued benefit from NDEA was increased enrollments in less commonly taught languages during the 1970s. Languages representing Africa (Swahili), Asia (Chinese and Japanese), Europe (Italian), and those native to regions of the United States (American Indian languages and Hawaiian) all reported increased enrollments (see Appendix C). Teachers for some of these languages, such as Russian, were trained in NDEA-funded institutes designed to quickly increase their presence in school course offerings (Childers, 1964, pp. 23–25). Other languages, such as Swahili, Italian, and Native American languages, grew with greater demands for opportunities to study languages related to the ethnic and cultural heritage of students. The era of equality in education continued to expand the precedence of

< previous page

page_58

next page >

< previous page

page_59

next page >

Page 59 greater language-learning opportunities established under the NDEA. One of the major problems that NDEA was to address in education was the fact the few Americans could use a foreign language for communicative purposes. The development and dissemination of modern instructional materials and programs through NDEA funding was aligned with the ALM method. Despite the many criticisms of ALM, it did advance the issue of performance in a language. Although ALM was not the pedagogical magic bullet that enthusiastic supporters portrayed it to be, it did keep the focus on performance as new methodologies and developments in foreign language education continued through the 1970s and into the 1980s. A NATION AT RISK IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY: THE SECOND RISE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE During the 1960s and 1970s, high school graduation and college entrance requirements lowered as the proportion of secondary school students in the general studies track increased. Scores on college entrance tests, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), had been steadily falling since 1963 (Ravitch, 1995a, pp. 49–50). Education reports requested by President Jimmy Carter on the state of math, science, and foreign language education and course taking in high schools, published in 1979 and 1980 respectively, noted not only low enrollments in advanced coursework but also a lowering of academic standards in schools as a means to include more students in the college preparatory track (Ravitch, 1995a, p. 51). During the early 1980s, results of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and international testing reinforced the conclusion that the academic achievement of American students had fallen (Solomon, 1998, p. 6). A 1985 College Board report on falling SAT scores concluded that among the numerous factors that contributed to lowering scores (a diversification of the testing pool, a decreased focus on academic subjects, lack of curricular alignment to the tests, a lack of importance given to the tests, instructional practice and requirements, and social and political upheaval), it seemed that the general expectations for all students in high schools had been lowered to accommodate the changing student body (Ravitch, 1995a, pp. 50–51; Solomon, 1998, p. 6).1 A Nation at Risk In 1981, Secretary of Education Terrence Bell appointed the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) to investigate the growing national concern for lowering educational standards and achievement (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 333). The formation of national committees to study problems in education was not a new tactic. The constituencies that their

< previous page

page_59

next page >

< previous page

page_60

next page >

Page 60 members represented throughout history characterized such committees. The Committee of Ten had consisted of an even distribution of public and private secondary and post-secondary representatives. Education specialists (professors of education, the U.S. Bureau of Education, and normal schools) heavily represented the CRSE, which produced the Cardinal Principles. The 18-member committee making up the NCEE represented an even greater cross-section of interests in education. Teachers, professors, principals, and superintendents represented public and private secondary and postsecondary institutions. Representatives from local, state, and national school board associations sat on the committee. A former governor, a member of a state board of education, and a state commissioner of education represented state-level education concerns. Several private education foundations were also represented. Two professors of science (one a Nobel Laureate) and the New York state foreign language teacher of the year participated. Finally, industry was represented by a former chairman of the board of Bell Telephone Laboratories (NCEE, 1983, pp. iv–v). The committee’s 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, made it clear from its first lines that the nation’s success in the global economy was in decline and that secondary education was a major cause of this shortfall: Our nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. This report is concerned with only one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the one that undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility. (NCEE, 1983, p.5) The National Defense Education Act had stressed the need for education reform as fundamental to national defense. A Nation at Risk expanded this idea to global competition in the world economy. In a direct reference to NDEA (using the phrase “the Sputnik era”), the report equated a mediocre education system as one that sabotages the nation’s ability to compete internationally. “If an unfriendly foreign power attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war” (NCEE, 1983, p. 5). The broad membership of the NCEE had helped to formulate a report intended for the general population (Willis et al., 1993, p. 402). This document is sighted as one the most influential of education reform documents of the 1980s to sway public and political opinion on the focus of reform (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 166; Willis et al., 1993, p. 402; Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 333). Within one year of its publication, more than 260 commissions had been created in individual states to address the problem of mediocrity in schools (Willis et al., 1993, p. 402). Like the report of the Committee of Ten and the Cardinal Principles, the recommendations of this new report focused on the secondary school level. As if taken from a page of the 1893 Committee of Ten report, A Nation at

< previous page

page_60

next page >

< previous page

page_61

next page >

Page 61 Risk proposed “Five New Basics” in which all students, “whether they are gifted or less abled, affluent or disadvantaged, whether destined for college, the farm, or industry,” must perform with their best effort and to high expectations (NCEE, 1983, p. 24). All students were to complete a program of study including these new basics described in terms of the number of years of study: 1. Four years of English 2. Three years of mathematics 3. Three years of science 4. Three years of social studies 5. One-half year of computer science Additionally, two years of foreign language was recommended for college-bound students (NCEE, 1983, p. 24). Following these recommendations was a section in the report expanding on the implementation by subject discipline. In terms of foreign language, it recommended beginning instruction at the elementary level to facilitate the achievement of “some proficiency” in the language according to the two-year high school recommendation (NCEE, 1983, p.26). The purpose of foreign language in the curriculum was consistent with the general theme of this report: to introduce students to non-English-speaking cultures, to heighten awareness and comprehension of one’s native tongue, and to serve the nation’s need in commerce, diplomacy, defense, and education (NCEE, 1983, p.26). Besides academic content, A Nation at Risk made additional recommendations with regards to the educational system. These included proposals for raising standards for secondary school graduation requirements and the entrance requirements for higher education, effective use of the school day and lengthening of the academic year, and political and educational leadership and fiscal support to bring about education reform. A Nation at Risk has drawn comparisons to Bestor’s calls for a return to the rigor of traditional academic disciplines (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 162). It has also been compared to the report of the Committee of Ten for its capability to influence state and local education decisionmaking towards a standardized core curriculum (Willis et al., 1993, p. 402). Indeed, A Nation at Risk attacked the differentiation that had taken place in the secondary school curriculum through the 1970s, stating that there was no central core purpose of study: Secondary school curricula have been homogenized, diluted, and diffused to the point that they no longer have central purpose. In effect, we have a cafeteria-style curriculum in which the appetizers and desserts can easily be mistaken for the main courses. Students have migrated from vocational and college preparatory programs to “general track” courses in large numbers. The proportion of students taking a general program of study has increased from 12% in 1964 to 42% in 1979. (NCEE, 1983, p. 18)

< previous page

page_61

next page >

< previous page

page_62

next page >

Page 62 Despite a focus on traditional academic subjects, the prominence and purpose of foreign language in the curriculum proposed was reduced in comparison to similar reforms throughout history. Whereas foreign language study was of central importance in the curriculum recommendations proposed by Bestor, NDEA, and the report of the Committee of Ten, it was directly deferred as a subject for collegebound students in A Nation at Risk. In terms of the purpose of study, these earlier reform agendas were firm in their belief that foreign language was of vital importance to the general education of all students enrolled in high school. A Nation at Risk served to affirm its traditional college preparatory function and to emphasize the utilitarian benefits of foreign language study in a reduced capacity in the curriculum. Foreign Language after A Nation at Risk One of the several early education reports commissioned by President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s had focused on the problem of declining foreign and international studies in the United States. The President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (PCFLIS) 1979 report, Strength through Wisdom, blended the NDEA message of defense with the cause of economic prosperity and international political influence. The fall of foreign language studies in education through the 1970s was forcefully pointed out, “America’s incompetence in foreign language is nothing short of scandalous, and it is becoming worse” (PCFLIS, 1979b, p. 5). This report marked a turning point for foreign language as the case was made for its inclusion in efforts to improve the nation’s standing in the world: We are profoundly alarmed by what we have found: a serious deterioration in this country’s language and research capacity, at a time when an increasingly hazardous international military, political and economic environment is making unprecedented demands on America’s resources, intellectual capacity and public sensitivity. (PCFLIS, 1979b, p. 1) As a prelude to A Nation at Risk, the report sought a broad spectrum of input to address challenges to the nation: We arrive at these conclusions after painstaking examination of the evidence and on the basis of extensive expert testimony from the fields of education, business and labor, industry and government, and from representative citizens groups. We were left with no room for doubt that America’s position in the world has changed radically over the last quarter century. Powerful competitors challenge our military and economic position … (PCFLIS, 1979b, p. 3) As the momentum for change in education shifted to the economy in the early 1980s, states acted on recommendations made by these reform reports: high school graduation requirements were increased; more academic courses

< previous page

page_62

next page >

< previous page

page_63

next page >

Page 63 were added to the required core curriculum; laws were passed to lengthen the school day and academic year; teacher certification was reexamined and changed and salaries were raised; and new statewide student assessments were developed (Guthrie, and Koppich, 1997, p. 309). Foreign language study after A Nation at Risk grew with these reform initiatives. Changes in course taking. The emphasis on academic subjects during the 1980s reversed earlier trends in general studies course taking. Table 5-1 presents enrollment data of cumulative credits earned by subject discipline for graduating seniors from 1982 to 1994. These data were collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) as part of a longitudinal study of course taking patterns (NCES, 1998). The beginning of a turnaround in academic course taking is depicted from 1982 to 1987. Within this five-year period, foreign language, math, and science showed the largest gains—increasing by 38 percent, 17.4 percent, and 15.3 percent, respectively. Within math and science, course taking shifted away from general studies and vocationally oriented courses to traditional college preparatory courses (Angus and Mirel, 1995, p. 316). Increased enrollments in foreign language were most dramatic and represented an abrupt change in educational policy advocated by Strength through Wisdom . Increased foreign language enrollments. Enrollments in foreign language made unprecedented gains during the 1980s (see Appendix A). The national enrollment surveys for 1978 to 1985 show an increase from 22.1 percent to 32.2 percent in the high school enrollment rate. This 10.1 percent increase came predominantly from the four-year period from 1982 to 1985 after the publication of national education reform documents. Most significant is the dramatic increase in the percentage of the entire adolescent population engaged in foreign language study. The 1985 figure of 27 percent represented an historic high at the time (see Appendix B). In terms of individual languages, Spanish continued to dominate the enrollments (see Appendix A). Spanish enrolled the largest proportion of students by 1985 (58.2 percent). French maintained its quarter share of enrollments (28.2 percent). German enrollments continued to decline during this period, decreasing from 10.7 percent in 1978 to 7.8 percent in 1985. Despite a proliferation of other foreign languages in schools, these accounted for only 1.4 percent of enrollments in 1985. These trends would continue into the next decade. Increase in beginning-level enrollments. Increased foreign language enrollments were consistent with the academic focus of reform in the 1980s. The length of study did not keep pace with this growth, however. Rather than increased advanced-level course taking, as was the trend in math and science, students were increasingly enrolling in shorter two-year sequences in foreign language. Table 5-2 presents data from the transcripts of graduated public high school seniors analyzed by the National Assessment of Educational Progress

< previous page

page_63

next page >

< previous page

page_64

next page >

Page 64 Table 5-1 Mean Number of Credits (Carnegie Units) Earned by Public High School Graduates in Academic Courses: 1982–1994 Subject Field 1982198719901994% Change 1982– % Change 1990– % Change 1982– 1987 1994 1994 Fine Arts Mean 1.44 1.42 1.52 1.64 −1.4 +7.9 +13.9 S.E. 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 Foreign Mean 1.08 1.49 1.66 1.83 +38.0 +10.2 +69.4 Languages S.E. 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 Language Arts Mean 3.93 4.08 4.12 4.23 +3.8 +2.7 +7.6 S.E. 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 Math Mean 2.64 3.10 3.24 3.41 +17.4 +5.2 +29.2 S.E. 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 Physical Mean 2.29 2.20 2.25 2.21 –3.9 –1.8 –3.5 Education S.E. 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.06 Science Mean 2.22 2.56 2.78 3.06 +15.3 +10.1+37.8 S.E. 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 Social Studies Mean 3.24 3.39 3.52 3.59 +4.6 +13.5 +10.8 S.E. 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 aComputer Mean 0.14 0.49 0.54 0.65 +250.0 +20.4 +364.3 Studies S.E. 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 aComputer-related courses are also included in other categories. Note: One Carnegie unit is equivalent to the completion of a course meeting for one period a day, five days a week, for the entire school year. Source : National Center for Education Statistics (1998). The 1994 High School Transcript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1994, 1990, 1987, and 1982 High School Graduates (Revised) . Washington, D.C.: Author, Appendix 10, p. 58, Table 8. NCES 98–532.

< previous page

page_64

next page >

< previous page

page_65

next page >

Page 65 (NAEP) (NCES, 1998). The percentage of all seniors graduating from public high school who had studied some amount of foreign language increased from 49.8 percent in 1982 to 61.4 percent in 1987. These seniors were completing on average, however, only 1.47 credits in a language. In other words, the vast majority of these seniors still completed less than two years of foreign language. Only the grouping of students in the academic, or college-bound, track completed just beyond two years of language study (2.01 credits) in 1987—still within the beginning level category. Similarly, foreign language enrollment surveys confirm this trend in increased beginning-level study. Appendices J and K show that the percentage of students enrolled at the beginning level rose slightly from 81.1 percent in 1978 to 81.3 percent in 1985. This situation represents the first instance in history that increased length of study did not accompany the increased growth in enrollments associated with an academic focus in national education reform. Two possibly related explanations exist for this increase in beginning-level study. First, recall that by 1978, fewer students were studying foreign language but more were studying at the advanced level. At this time, greater numbers of students were enrolled in earlier foreign language study and could take advantage of advanced-level courses offered in high school. From 1978 to 1985, however, there was a decline in the number of students studying foreign language in seventh and eighth grade from 661,631 to 472,116 (Hammond and Scebold, 1980; Dandonoli, 1987). Fewer students were capable of taking advantage of advanced-level courses in the transition into high school in the mid-1980s. A second explanation for increased beginning-level enrollments in the 1980s is the reduced role of foreign language in general education reform. Strength through Wisdom had advocated more foreign language and international studies in schools as a means to bolster the nation’s economic standing. Once this cause was addressed through reform of general education in high schools, however, foreign language was dropped from the recommended core curriculum for all students. As one of the most widely cited national documents on secondary education reform, A Nation at Risk identified the “new basics” as curriculum recommendations based on traditional academic subjects. This academic focus would seem to explain an upturn in overall foreign language enrollments. These recommendations were explicit in recommending two years of language study for college-bound students, however. This emphasis on the beginning level might have tempered the growth of advanced-level enrollments despite an increase in overall enrollments. The “new basics” have been used throughout the 1980s and 1990s by the U.S. Department of Education to measure progress in the academic course taking of secondary school students—always with a two-year foreign language threshold designated as meeting the highest level of academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 1998, p.88). During the 1980s, changes in foreign language enrollments seem to have directly reflected the recommendations for general education reform.

< previous page

page_65

next page >

< previous page

page_66

next page >

Page 66 Table 5-2 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Transcript Dataaon Length of Study of Foreign Language for All Students Versus Those in an Academic Trackb: 1982–1994 1982198719901994 Percent Change Percent Change 1982–1987 1990–1994 % of graduates who studied a foreign language 49.8 64.1 70.3 76.1 +14.3 +5.8 S.E. 0.77 1.31 1.18 0.90 Mean number of credits earned by all 1.08 1.49 1.66 1.83 +38.0 +10.2 graduates S.E. 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 Mean number of credits earned by graduates in 1.18 2.01 2.08 2.17 +70.3 +9.0 academic track S.E. 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.04 aData adapted from NCES (1998) Tables 29–30, 33, 36, and 68 bApproximately 68.9 percent of students were reported to have enrolled in the academic track, 6.4 percent in vocational, 19.1 percent in both, and 5.6 percent in no identified track (NCES 1998, Table 2). Academic track is defined in the NAEP study as a student having earned at least 12 total credits in the following core course areas: English, social studies, and mathematics and/or science and having fewer than three credits in any specific labor market preparation field. Source : National Center for Education Statistics (1998). The 1994 High School Transcript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1994, 1990, 1987, and 1982 High School Graduates (Revised). Washington, D.C.: Author, Tables 29–30, 33, 36, and 68. NCES 98– 532.

< previous page

page_66

next page >

< previous page

page_67

next page >

Page 67 College entrance requirements . During the period of education reform of the 1980s, colleges and universities began to increase both entrance and exit (graduation) requirements to include more academic courses in a move consistent with the recommendations of national reform documents (Brod and Huber, 1996). This increase included more foreign language study. Reversing nearly two decades of lowering requirements, the percentage of institutions of higher education requiring foreign language for entrance rose from 14.1 percent in 1982 to 20.3 percent in 1987 (Brod and Huber, 1996, p. 41). This increase came at time when more high school students were graduating and entering higher education. By 1990, these rates increased to 73.8 percent for high school graduation (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, p. 124) and 59.9 percent for college entrance (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, p. 215). The traditional relationship between college entrance and the study of foreign language was being re-established, represented by increased course taking and entrance requirements in foreign language. Proficiency movement in foreign language. One of several proposals for improving foreign language education to come from Strength through Wisdom and its associated papers series (PCFLIS, 1979a) was a “common yard stick” or a set of descriptors relating to all languages based on real-life use for the assessment of language competence. The U.S. government’s Foreign Service Institute (FSI) had developed such a system of descriptors and procedures for measurement in the 1950s (Omaggio Hadley, 1993, p. 11). The FSI had periodically coordinated workshops on the use of these assessments for the benefit of foreign language representatives in higher education. It was not until the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) began initiatives to further develop and disseminate this approach to the assessment of language competence in the early 1980s, however, that a national movement towards proficiency in language use began. The ACTFL Provisional Proficiency Guidelines were initially released in 1982 (Hancock and Scebold, 1999, pp. 12–13). Subsequent revisions and updates to this original document continue presently in the form of the standing ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines . Proficiency in a foreign language refers to the degree of measured competence in the language. The movement towards a focus on proficiency in the 1980s represents a continuation from NDEA of the importance of language performance and the ability to communicate. The significance of the proficiency movement in the 1980s was the cooperative venture of national foreign language associations, educational business industry, and federal funding for the broad proliferation of language-learning programs and materials, assessments, and learning opportunities to advance pedagogical prac-

< previous page

page_67

next page >

< previous page

page_68

next page >

Page 68 tice. The Oral Proficiency Interview, a means for assessing speaking skills, was the result of work by ACTFL, MLA, and the Educational Testing Service (ETS) (Omaggio Hadley, 1993, pp. 11–12). The proficiency movement galvanized numerous textbook series, pedagogical texts, and professional initiatives and activities in national conferences and workshops. This “paradigm shift” (Swaffar, Arens, and Byrnes, 1991, p. 9) reflected not only an emphasis on communicative ability in language performance but also on a broad and developing educational base for instructional delivery (Bernhardt, 1999, p. 54). CONCLUSION In voicing dissenting views to the Strength through Wisdom report, representative Millicent Fenwick stressed the need for the development of standards or levels of achievement to accompany funding for foreign language education (PCFLIS, 1979b, p. 155). It was not enough to describe the problem and to fund initiatives; measurable outcomes were needed to assure quality results. By the 1980s, much had been accomplished by the foreign language profession to serve the growing national movement towards standards in education. Foreign language was aligning itself with broader education reform. The collaborative work that had resulted in a shift towards proficiency strengthened professional resolve to continue the improvement of the standing and practice of foreign language education in the 1990s. NOTE 1. There is considerable evidence to suggest that many of the trends in declining achievement and test scores were phenomena of the 1970s and that they had leveled off or shown improvement in the early 1980s (Urban and Wagoner, 1996, p. 335). Willis et al. point also to the original research reports by Tomlinson and Walberg (1986) used to inform the writing of A Nation at Risk as open to far different conclusions than what the NCEE chose as a basis for its report (p. 402).

< previous page

page_68

next page >

< previous page

page_69

next page >

Page 69 6 Standards for the 21st Century: Historic Growth in Contemporary Education Reform In the 1990s, education reform increasingly focused on the setting of statewide standards for the improvement of student performance in academic content areas (Elmore, 1997, p. 296). The origins of this standards-based reform lie in the convergence of fiscal, political, and economic pressures dating back to the 1960s and situated in individual state initiatives (Elmore, 1997, p. 295; Solomon, 1998, p. 5). A crucial difference between education reform since NDEA has been the reduction of federal funding to local and state governments for education and the shift of responsibility for implementing education reform to these levels (Willis et al., 1993, p. 402). The shift in fiscal and reform responsibilities began as early as the 1960s and 1970s, when statewide education reform focused on input and process measures (revamping graduation requirements, teacher competency testing, and state monitoring systems of education expenditures) (Elmore, 1997, p. 296). In the 1980s, reform additionally focused on governance (providing more authority and decision making power at the local school site and encouraging new management and organizational strategies in schools and school districts). The political result of this shift in responsibilities was twofold. First, state legislators and governors began to assume greater influence on educational policy affecting local schools. Second, this situation allowed state political leaders greater authority in demanding accountability for the results of state educational funding (Elmore, 1997, pp. 295–295). During the 1990s, larger administrative units, including state legislatures and leaders within large urban school districts, focused on the reform of K– 12 curriculum content as an answer to demands for social, political, and economic equality among diverse racial, religious, and ethnic groups (O’Day and Smith, 1993, p. 293).

< previous page

page_69

next page >

< previous page

page_70

next page >

Page 70 Both accountability in education spending and equity of educational opportunities would come through standards. The educational historian Diane Ravitch presents the case that national standards in education have existed for decades in the form of content standards and performance assessments developed by an independent education industry: We learn from history that American education does have standards and that these standards have emerged in a patchwork … [and] uncoordinated manner. For much of our history, our curriculum standards have been created—almost accidentally—by those who develop commercially produced textbooks and tests. What children should know and be able to do has been decided off handedly through a sort of consensus process that occurred at the intersection between state departments of education and publishers hoping to market their product. At the high end, performance standards were established by college admission tests and advanced placement tests; for most students, however, the minimal expectations embedded in nationally normed tests became de facto national standards. (Ravitch, 1995b, p. 187) It was not until the 1980s that federal and state governments began to explore the development of standards independent of these commercial interests in education. States were a driving force in the development of federally supported education goals statements such as America 2000 and Goals 2000. Voluntary national education standards were developed by professional organizations representing the various subject disciplines and funded by the federal government. The adoption of these standards to educational practice was subject to their adaptation and relevance to K–12 curriculum frameworks developed by individual state governments. The rise of “education governors,” future President Bill Clinton of Arkansas, and future head of the Department of Education Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, for example, and superintendents of large school districts politicized the consolidation of state power to reform education (Elmore, 1997, p. 294). Increased academic course taking during the period of standards in education continued as a trend that began in the mid 1980s. Enrollments in foreign language rose to their highest levels in the history of secondary education. More students were completing advanced coursework in academic subjects, which included increased rates in advanced-level foreign language that rivaled those of the early 1900s. The development of national standards in foreign language during this decade served to advocate increased language study and influenced content and performance standards in this subject area across national, state, and local educational venues. Despite these gains, funding and educational policy necessary to achieve the goals of these standards remained elusive. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH STANDARDS IN EDUCATION Following publication of A Nation at Risk, many of the recommendations immediately implemented by the states were directly linked to increased

< previous page

page_70

next page >

< previous page

page_71

next page >

Page 71 credit and graduation requirements in academic subjects (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 173). These requirements consisted primarily of “seat time” mandates measured in Carnegie units; students were required to attend and pass specified courses. The Carnegie unit had been the principle means for legislating educational improvement since 1899, when the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching adopted and formulated a standard measurement for course credit based upon recommendations by the Committee on College Entrance Requirements (see Chapter 2) (Kandel, 1930, p. 479; Markham, 1993). Education reform in the 1990s, however, sought to replace seat time requirements with assessments of the actual knowledge that students had attained in the subject disciplines. This situation marked a new form of accountability in education through standards. This accountability was intended to provide documentation to state and community leaders, local school district administration, and parents as to student performance in the subject areas. The Process of Standards-Based Education Reform A series of events in the late 1980s and early 1990s led to the cooperation of state leadership and the federal government in national education reform. In 1989, the National Governors Association held an education summit that placed special emphasis on the creation of standards in education (Solomon, 1998, p. 8). Following this summit, President George Bush announced national education goals that had been developed in cooperation with the governors during his 1990 State of the Union address. A national education goals panel was also established by the federal government that same year to monitor state progress in education reform (Ravitch, 1995a, pp. 57–58). National education goals were outlined in a subsequent 1991 publication America 2000: An Education Strategy (henceforth referred to as America 2000) (U.S. Department of Education, 1991). America 2000 was spearheaded by Secretary of Education (and former governor) Lamar Alexander and President Bush as a response to the governors’ education summit. Its introduction directly cited A Nation at Risk, noting that little progress has been made in the development of standards since its publication in 1983 (Solomon, 1998, p. 8). The goals of America 2000 sought to improve K–12 education for all students in the core subjects of English, math, science, history, and geography. By the year 2000: 1. All children in America will start school ready to learn. 2. The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. 3. American students will leave grades four, eight, and 12 having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use

< previous page

page_71

next page >

< previous page

page_72

next page >

Page 72 their minds well so that they will be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. 4. U.S. students will be the first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. 5. Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. 6. Every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. (U.S. Department of Education, 1991) Foreign language was not included in this early national goals document. The goals placed curricular emphasis on math, science, and literacy with staggered outcomes assessments in grades four, eight, and 12. Strategies for accomplishing these goals included accountability measures in each of the five core subjects, voluntary national testing, merit funding, and teacher education (Solomon, 1998, p. 9). In many ways, the reform agenda had already been set by A Nation at Risk. America 2000 echoed many of the ideas proposed in the 1980s. Like A Nation at Risk, it focused on global competition. It declared that American students would be “first in the world” in mathematics and science achievement and that every adult American would “possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy” (U.S. Department of Education, 1991). Similar to A Nation at Risk, it did not include foreign language as a common subject in which all students should demonstrate competency. Other issues prominent in educational debates in the 1980s, such as drugs and violence in schools, found their way into the six reform goals. Finally, both reform documents proposed a common core of academic subjects to prepare all students for life after high school, regardless of post-secondary pursuits, in a tone similar to that of the Committee of Ten in 1893 (Angus and Mirel, 1999, p. 163). Despite similarities to earlier reform, America 2000 did not propose a formulaic program of units of study. Instead, it listed academic subjects in which students should demonstrate competence in grades four, eight, and 12 so that all students “will be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy” (U.S. Department of Education, 1991). This shift from accountability in terms of Carnegie units to accountability by performance (or competency) initiated the development of content and performance standards in states and within subject disciplines. President Bush chaired the 1992 education summit convened in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended by all 50 state governors. This summit solidified a national commitment to standards-based reform (Elmore, 1997, p. 294). Although the Bush administration did not offer federal legislation, support for the development of national standards by professional organizations representing various subject disciplines was provided through grants from the Department of Education (Ravitch, 1995a, p. 28).

< previous page

page_72

next page >

< previous page

page_73

next page >

Page 73 These reform initiatives continued to be supported by the Clinton administration through the mid to late 1990s. On March 31, 1994, President Clinton signed the Public Law 103-227 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, reinforcing the standards reform agenda with federal legislation (Goals 2000, 1994). This legislation called for the development of voluntary national standards and assessments, created a federal agency that would certify state standards documents and assessments based on voluntary submission to the agency (Ravitch, 1995a, p. 29), provided federal funding for state and local education initiatives, and expanded the core K–12 subject areas from five in the original America 2000 to nine. The inclusion of additional school subjects was the result of national debate and lobbying by the various subject disciplines with four additions: the arts, foreign language, civics, and economics. The six original goals proposed by America 2000 were also appended to include two new goals for teacher improvement and parental involvement in education. The Congress declares that the National Education Goals are the following: (3) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP. (A) By the year 2000, all students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our Nation’s modern economy. (B) The objectives for this goal are that (i) the academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary level will increase significantly in every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in each quartile will more closely reflect the student population as a whole; the percentage of all students who demonstrate the ability to reason, solve problems, apply knowledge, and write and communicate effectively will increase substantially; (ii) all students will be involved in activities that promote and demonstrate good citizenship, good health, community service, and personal responsibility; (iv) all students will have access to physical education and health education to ensure they are healthy and fit; (v) the percentage of all students who are competent in more than one language will substantially increase; (vi) and all students will be knowledgeable about the diverse cultural heritage of this Nation and about the world community. (Goals 2000: Educate

< previous page

page_73

next page >

< previous page

page_74

next page >

Page 74 America Act. H.R. 1804, 1994, Section 102, Point 3) (Emphasis added by the author.) The federal certifying agency created under Goals 2000, the National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC), was a primary target of conservative politicians who were part of the new Republican majorities in the House and Senate after the 1994 congressional elections. These politicians campaigned for the reduction of the federal government in state and local education and reinforced the continuing shift towards state control of national education reform. As a result of this political pressure, President Clinton never appointed members to this council (Cohen, 1995, p. 752; Ravitch, 1995a, p. xvii). In 1996, provisions in Goals 2000 for the development of NESIC and national standards from the developed goals were repealed by Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). At the 1996 national education summit convened by the National Governors’ Association, the governors reaffirmed their support of state-based, rather than national, standards. President Clinton, addressing the governors, announced funding to individual states for the development of their own standards and assessments (Ravitch, 1995a, p. xx). The governors agreed to explore the development of a nongovernmental “entity” that would assure the consistency of standards and assessments across states (Ravitch, 1995a, pp. xx–xxi). Such an entity that would oversee the development of standards on a national level was never formed. DEFINING STANDARDS AND CURRICULUM FRAMEWORKS The literature on standards-based reform encompasses multiple subject matter and educational disciplines. General agreement among the terms used with reference to this reform provides a common vocabulary for discussion. “Standards-based reform” refers to the use of standards and curriculum frameworks to improve education. In their most basic definition, educational standards provide common goals and terminology for discussing, planning, and articulating learning across levels of instruction (Welles, 1998, p. 7). Rather than dictate decision making, standards inform educational planning and program development (Levin, 1998, p. 5). Forms and functions of standards . Standards take several forms and perform a variety of additional functions in education. “Content standards” describe what students will learn and what teachers will teach within an academic discipline (Ravitch, 1995a, p. 12). This essential content is typically outlined within a “curriculum framework.” Curriculum frameworks provide a structure, rationale, examples, and an orientation to teaching a particular subject-specific field (Eisner, 1985, pp. 56–57). Although frameworks are not formal

< previous page

page_74

next page >

< previous page

page_75

next page >

Page 75 curricula, they are intended to influence the selections of content by outlining relevant concepts and knowledge identified and agreed upon by a representative body of educators to be included or introduced into existing curricula. “Performance standards” define the knowledge and proficiency requirements expected of students upon completion of specific levels of instruction (Levin, 1998, p. 4). These standards define levels of attainment and describe what kinds of performance characterize insufficient, sufficient, or outstanding achievement (Ravitch, 1995a, pp. 12–13). “Opportunity-to-learn standards” (sometimes referred to as “school delivery standards”) outline the educational resources (programs, courses, teachers, instructional materials, and technology) and policy (mandates, laws, and requirements) that states and school districts provide and implement so that students are able to meet content and performance standards (Ravitch, 1995a, p. 13). Standards in education can serve to facilitate high academic performance by all students (Lee and Fradd, 1998, p. 12) and to diagnose those students in need of academic help. These functions of standards might be part of an accountability system in education that rewards or sanctions schools based on student performance (Kearns, Kleinert, and Kennedy, 1999, p. 34). Standards and their associated curriculum frameworks provide education reform initiates with content-focused goals based on minimal expectations: what teachers need to teach, what students need to learn, how this information might be assessed, when in the instructional sequence this process might take place, where specific improvements can be made, and a common focus for collaborative work amongst colleagues (Schmoker and Marzano, 1999, p. 18). Standards and frameworks provide an “essential focus and coherence” to content-related endeavors (Schmoker and Marzano, 1999, p. 18). Opportunity-to-learn standards . Content and performance standards apply more specifically to work in subject disciplines. Opportunity-to-learn (OTL) standards, on the other hand, have been viewed as a means to enforce the equalization of resources and funding among schools. The term “opportunity-tolearn” has traditionally been used in assessments to describe test performance in relation to the timing and sequence of curricular content. This term’s meaning has expanded to include the discussion of standards, however. The essential idea behind OTL standards is equity of educational opportunity. Orland and Tan (1995) have identified several ways in which federal and state governments have affected equity in education. The federal government has historically influenced decisions of equity through legal access guarantees (for example, court decisions on desegregation and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and categorical programs (for example, Title I for disadvantaged children). At the state level, where educa-

< previous page

page_75

next page >

< previous page

page_76

next page >

Page 76 tion is financed predominantly through state and local funds, school finance reform has been the chief approach to equity. State school aid formulas provide funds to local school districts that cannot raise adequate education funds through their local tax base. States also use standards of educational input and process that work to guarantee the same basic education for all students. Examples of such standards include laws setting the minimum number of school days, specific core courses that schools must offer, teacher certification requirements, and financial reporting. Most recently, the federal government considered the development of OTL standards as part of the federal legislation under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act passed in 1994. These standards would have been used as a means to ensure that states, which receive federal funds, develop equitable standards for all students. Ravitch (1995a, pp. 150–153) describes the lobbying and debate on OTL standards in Washington, D.C. prior to the passage of Goals 2000. Legislators argued the merits of standards that would encourage equalization, require states receiving Goals 2000 funds to meet OTL standards, and require states to document disparities between schools and school districts. State governors argued that this situation would lead to increased litigation, federal control over school budgets, and federal mandates on issues such as class size, teacher pay, and teaching methods. The final version of Goals 2000 reflected the governors’ concerns about recommending, rather than requiring, the development of OTL standards in state education reform. In practice, OTL standards—which would ensure that “all students … demonstrate … competency over challenging subject matter” as point three of Goals 2000 states—are rarely developed within state standards-based reform initiatives. Studies on the issue of equity in educational opportunities (Massell, Kirst, and Hoppe, 1997) have found testing to be the principle approach that states take in cases when provisions for equity exist. Statewide testing, with possible school, school district, and teacher repercussions for low scores, is an approach that preserves state education funding mechanisms while addressing equity issues. With the exception of New Jersey, where OTL standards have been included in a strategic plan for educational improvement, few states have developed OTL standards or an equity policy that would complement content and performance standards (Massell, Kirst, and Hoppe, 1997). Opposing ideas in standards. Although agreement exists as to the general terms and implementation of standards, opposition to standards in education was voiced through the 1990s. Kohn (1999, p. 7), for example, categorized standards-based initiatives as promoting either “horizontal standards” designed to change teaching and facilitate learning and “vertical standards” designed to intensify and raise educational expectations. He argued that a choice to pursue reform focused on vertical standards increases the need for education to conform to a predetermined and prescribed curriculum at the

< previous page

page_76

next page >

< previous page

page_77

next page >

Page 77 expense of reconceptualizing instruction and learning (horizontal standards). The question that Kohn posed to those working to develop standards in education was whether standards should “shift how teaching and learning occurs in the classroom” or dictate the content, timing, and assessment of instruction and learning (O’Neil and Tell, 1999, pp. 18–19). Opposition was focused on the latter. Eisner (1985, pp. 4–5) outlined potential problems that could arise if developers of standards took a minimum competency approach to student performance. Such an approach potentially comes at the expense of high academic standards in education. The central argument was that minimal expectations are really not standards for improved education (Eisner, 1985, p. 5). Implicit in the construct of a standard is that not all students will meet it. Eisner suggested as evidence the fact that if the teaching profession (and the nation) was satisfied with the educational performance of students, standardsbased education reform would not be necessary. Despite these opposing voices, standards in education developed nationally through the decade. Development of National and State Standards Federal funding to representative professional organizations for the development of documents outlining national standards in subject disciplines was first granted by the Bush administration. This model followed the approach taken by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) as a “free market” example for the development of voluntary standards (Ravitch, 1995a, p. 28). Such an approach enabled teachers and scholars within a subject discipline to develop a standards document and disseminate it nationally for scrutiny of its feasibility in classrooms, school districts, and state adoption and for general feedback from the public at large. This approach appealed to the consensus at the education summits that standards should be voluntary and free of federal control (Ravitch, 1995a, p. 28). Funding from the U.S. Department of Education for standards development was awarded in 1991 and 1992 to organizations representing the content areas of science, history, geography, foreign languages, the arts, English, and civics (Ravitch, 1995a, p. 29). The NCTM standards have been widely adopted by states and school districts (Solomon, 1998, p. 11). Standards projects in other subject areas, such as history and English, have met with mixed responses from the public and from their own professions. The history standards developed at the National Center for History in the Schools at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) involved the collaboration of education and history organizations and hundreds of teachers and scholars (Ravitch, 1995a, p. xvii). The pilot standards document was met with criticism for its content even before publication in 1994. This criticism included suggestions that, in striving to reach

< previous page

page_77

next page >

< previous page

page_78

next page >

Page 78 all students, the content standards stressed historical processes and cultural sensitivity over the learning of significant and traditional events and key figures in history. Critics ranged from the former head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, who approved the original grant for the development of history standards, to Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers. The U.S. Senate voted to condemn the history standards on a 99 to one count. Through a review process, these standards were eventually revised and republished in 1996 with little criticism (Ravitch, 1995a, pp. xvii– xviii). A joint effort by the National Council of Teachers of English, the International Reading Association, and the Center for the Study of Reading (CSR) to develop standards in English began in 1992 with funding from the Bush administration (Ravitch, 1995a, p. xix). Again, the content of the early drafts of these standards was criticized—this time on the basis of a perceived lack of explicit content. By 1994, this project was defunded by the Clinton administration after peer reviewers concluded it would not lead to content or performance standards. The CSR soon dropped out of the project. In 1996, when the English standards were eventually released, the document was published as a discussion guide for the profession (Ravitch, 1995a, p. xix). At the state level, standards-based reform initiatives have taken place in various forms in all 50 states. State education policy varies from approaches allowing local school districts to develop their own standards in Iowa, for example, to centrally mandated content and performance standards developed by state departments of education in states such as Colorado (Gandal, 1995). The consistent model remains one of state control over standards development and implementation informed by national standards documents developed by professional organizations. Marzano and Kendall (1996) characterize the majority of standards developed by states as lacking specific content and performance goals. In a 1998 survey for the American Federation of Teachers, Glidden (1998) found that only 19 states had produced standards with specified content and performance. The absence of specific content in many state standards might be related to the slow development or lack of purposeful assessments in these states. Ravitch notes that the development of assessments to accompany standards is complicated by the fact that a stipulation in the Goals 2000 legislation prohibits states from using federal funds for the development of tests that would serve to determine consequences for students: being held back a grade, graduating, and not graduating (1995a, p. xx). Indeed, only seven states had developed performance assessments aligned with standards for the promotion of students to subsequent levels of study (Glidden, 1998). Standards-based reform in the late 1990s continued to consist primarily of state-level initiatives funded through a combination of federal and state aid and informed by subject-specific standards documents developed by national organizations.

< previous page

page_78

next page >

< previous page

page_79

next page >

Page 79 Increased Academic Course Taking Goals 2000 formed a unique partnership with the states. Federal funding allotted to states and school districts was not restricted to specific subject disciplines, as was the case under the NDEA. Rather, states and often school districts under direction from the state independently decided which subjects to target for the development and assessment of standards. Under this arrangement, the inclusion of additional subject disciplines to those originally targeted by America 2000 was not a signal for the differentiation or expansion of the curriculum. The inclusion of the nine subject disciplines in Goals 2000 emphasized that whatever combination finally made up the curriculum, it should result in a lengthened and articulated sequence that demonstrated accountability through performance. The emphasis on academic subjects outlined in A Nation at Risk continued to be reflected in coursetaking patterns through the early 1990s. According to NCES data, the percentage of students enrolled in an academic program of study rose significantly during this period1. In 1982 47.6% of students were enrolled in an academic program. By 1994, this percentage had risen to 69%. Reflecting this trend, enrollments in math and science shifted towards academic rather than general studies courses. In math, the percentage of students receiving credits in general, applied, and consumer math decreased from 46.4% in 1982 to 25.7% in 1994 (Angus and Mirel, 1999, pp. 179–181). The percentage receiving credit in traditional academic courses (advanced math, advanced algebra, trigonometry, geometry) increased in each course (Angus and Mirel, 1999, pp. 179–181). In science, growth in the percentage of students receiving credit was documented in both general and traditional academic courses (Angus and Mirel, 1999, pp. 179–181). The academic courses of biology, chemistry, and physical science recorded the greatest amount of growth of all courses from 1982 to 1994 (Angus and Mirel, 1999, pp. 179–181). Trends in course taking through the middle and late 1990s maintained enrollment gains in advancedlevel academic courses. From 1994 to 1998 the percentage of students enrolled in advanced courses2 in English, math, and science increased by an average of 2.6% (U.S. Department of Education, 2001, pp. 156, 199–206). Historical Gains in Foreign Language Course Taking Gains in foreign language study during the 1990s reached historic proportions. From 1982 to 2000, the percentages for traditional and alternative enrollment interpretations continued to rise (see Appendix B). By 2000, 43.8 percent of the high school population was enrolled in a foreign language—a rate last achieved in 1920s. Enrollments as a percentage of all adolescents reached a historic high of 37.5 percent during this year. More recent

< previous page

page_79

next page >

< previous page

page_80

next page >

Page 80 data suggests continued growth according to these two enrollment interpretations through the late 1990s. A 1997 survey of secondary enrollments conducted by the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) found that 51 percent of all high school students were enrolled in a foreign language in that year (Rhodes and Branaman, 1999). Transcript analysis of a national sample of graduated high school seniors by NCES found that 80.6 percent of 1998 graduates had enrolled in a foreign language course during their last four years in school (see Table 6-1 in the next section). Increased length of study. Goals 2000 and national and state standards documents called for lengthened learning sequences. Like other academic subjects, foreign language experienced increases in advanced-level enrollments during the 1990s. Levels of enrollments at the advanced level rivaled those at the beginning of the century in foreign language. From 1985 to 2000, the proportion of foreign language enrollments at the advanced level increased from 17.7 percent to 22 percent (see Appendices K and L). A similar trend in lengthened learning sequence is found in a recent analysis of graduated seniors’ transcripts conducted by NCES from 1982 to 1998 (see Table 6-1) (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2001). From 1987 to 1998, the percentage of seniors having completed advanced-level study increased from 19.2 percent to 30.0 percent. The shifting of enrollments towards the advanced level reflects a common trend found during historic periods of education reform focused on traditional academic subjects. The enrollment increases under NDEA, A Nation at Risk, and standards in education reflected the pragmatic study of modern languages for national defense, the global economy, and accountability in the education of all students. By association with these pragmatic goals, foreign language has maintained or increased its presence and length of sequence in the secondary school curriculum. Spanish and Spanish for heritage learners. The overtaking and virtual replacement of classical languages with modern in the secondary school curriculum during ife adjustment in the 1940s was led by the study of Spanish. Besides contributing to an academic program for college entrance, Spanish offered greater pragmatic advantages in its study. By the 1990s, the study of Spanish continued to dominate the curriculum, accounting for 68.8 percent of all foreign language enrollments. A new dimension to its presence in the curriculum was the emergence of courses for heritage learners of Spanish—students who speak a varying amount of Spanish in their homes because of cultural heritage. The 1994 enrollment survey was the first to include enrollments in “Spanish for Spanish speakers” (a term used by ACTFL to classify these enrollments) (Appendix C). In this year, 17,766 students were enrolled in such courses, making it the seventh-highest enrolled language (surpassing Chinese and Russian in rank). By 2000, it ranked fifth and enrolled 127,551 students (Appendix C).

< previous page

page_80

next page >

< previous page

page_81

next page >

Page 81 Table 6-1 Highest Foreign Language Course Completed by Level in Public High Schools 1982 to 1998: Total for French, German, Latin, and Spanish Year 1982 1987 1990 1992 1994 1998 None 46.6 33.3 26.9 22.5 22.3 19.4 Level I & II 39.8 47.5 51.4 51.8 51.8 50.7 Level III 8.9 11.9 12.9 14.8 15.0 17.4 Level IV 4.5 5.4 5.6 7.7 7.8 8.6 AP 1.2 1.9 3.2 3.2 3.1 4.1 Total Advanced 14.6 19.2 21.7 25.7 25.9 30.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Notes : From 1982 to 1994, the four languages French, German, Latin, and Spanish accounted for no less than 95.5 percent of all total foreign language enrollments (U.S. Deptartment of Education, 2001, p. 203). Enrollments by Level I and II were collapsed into a beginning-level category in the primary data. Percentages might exceed 100.0 due to rounding. Source : Adapted from U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The Condition of Education 2001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 2001–072, p. 154, Table 33–2. National Assessment of Educational Progress data provide more detailed evidence of the growth of heritage language enrollments in Spanish. From 1987 to 1994, the number of high school seniors graduating with credits in courses for heritage learners (termed Spanish for native speakers in the NAEP report) increased from 22,863 to 40,254 (U.S. Department of Education, 1998, Table 121). In 1994, the percentage of course completion by level in this language reflected the national trends for all languages: 78.7 percent completed beginning-level courses, and 21.4 percent completed advanced-level courses (U.S. Department of Education, 1998, Table 121). By the end of the 20th century, so dominant was Spanish that it enrolled more students (3,219,775 in 1994) than all other foreign languages combined in any given year, going back to the beginning of the century (see Appendix A). There was no equal to Spanish in the history of foreign language education.

< previous page

page_81

next page >

< previous page

page_82

next page >

Page 82 Content and Performance Standards in Foreign Language Following the example of A Nation at Risk, foreign language was not one of the five core subjects for which high academic standards were proposed at the 1989 National Governors Association education summit and outlined in America 2000. By 1993, a collaborative lobbying effort by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), the American Association of Teachers of French (AATF), the American Association of Teachers of German (AATG), and the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (AATSP) secured funding from the Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Humanities as the seventh and final subject area to develop national standards (Lafayette and Draper, 1996, p. 2). The 1994 Goals 2000 legislation included foreign language as one of nine subject areas in which all students were to demonstrate competence upon completing grades four, eight, and 12. Despite its inclusion in Goals 2000, foreign language was not included within the 32 progress indicators used by the National Education Goals Panel to evaluate states’ progress in standards-based reform (National Goals Educational Panel, 2000). These progress indicators continue to reflect an emphasis on math, science, literacy, social studies, and other education-related issues that A Nation at Risk and America 2000 sought to address. That foreign language was included in Goals 2000 does not guarantee a special status within the core curriculum of schools. Rather, this inclusion, along with all subjects, assures its consideration and creates funding opportunities as states and school districts revise their core curricula and enact the process of creating standards. Standards for Foreign Language Learning was published in 1996 as a generic set of standards for all languages with a primary focus on French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project [NSFLEP], 1996). In a similar fashion as the NCTM standards, the foreign language standards were developed through the collaboration of scholars, teachers, administrators, and community representatives. The three-year dissemination and revision process did not stop with this 1996 publication. A second standards document was released in 1999, which included language-specific standards documents for eight foreign languages and the classical languages (NSFLEP, 1999). The standards for each of the foreign languages share in common a framework outlined in the first 100 pages of the latest standards document. They are organized within five goal areas called the “Five Cs”: communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. Within each of these goal areas, two or three content standards are specified—representing 11 total content standards:

< previous page

page_82

next page >

< previous page

page_83

next page >

Page 83 Goal: Communication (communicate in languages other than English) Content Standard 1.1: Students engage in conversations, provide and obtain information, express feelings and emotions, and exchange opinions. Content Standard 1.2: Students understand and interpret written and spoken language on a variety of topics. Content Standard 1.3: Students present information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of listeners or readers on a variety of topics. Goal: Cultures (gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures) Content Standard 2.1: Students demonstrate and understanding of the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the culture studied. Content Standard 2.2: Students demonstrate and understanding of the relationship between the products and perspectives of the culture studied. Goal: Connections (connect with other disciplines and acquire information) Content Standard 3.1: Students reinforce and further their knowledge of other disciplines through the foreign language. Content Standard 3.2: Students acquire information and recognize the distinctive viewpoints that are available only through the foreign language and its cultures. Goal: Comparisons (develop insight into the nature of language and culture) Content Standard 4.1: Students demonstrate understanding of the nature of language through comparisons of the language studied and their own. Content Standard 4.2: Students demonstrate understanding of the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own. Goal: Communities (participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world) Content Standard 5.1: Students use the language both within and beyond the school setting. Content Standard 5.2: Students show evidence of becoming lifelong learners by using the language for personal enjoyment and enrichment. (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1999, p. 9) As specified in Goals 2000, the benchmark grades of four, eight, and 12 performance standards are designated for assessment. Performance at each grade level is described in terms of sample progress indicators for each content standard. The progress indicators under communication content standard 1.1, for example, define this standard through a description of growth in competence over the course of K–12 study: Goal: Communication Content Standard 1.1 Sample Progress Indicators, Grade 4 • Students give and follow simple instructions in order to participate in age-appropriate classroom and/or cultural activities.

< previous page

page_83

next page >

< previous page

page_84

next page >

Page 84 • Students ask and answer questions about topics such as family, school events, and celebrations. • Students share likes and dislikes with each other and the class. Sample Progress Indicators, Grade 8 • Students follow and give directions for participating in age-appropriate cultural activities and investigating the function of products of the foreign culture. They ask and respond to questions for clarification. • Students exchange information about personal events, memorable experiences, and other school subjects with peer and/or members of the target cultures. • Students compare, contrast, and express opinions and preferences about the information gathered regarding events, experiences, and other school subjects. Sample Progress Indicators, Grade 12 • Students discuss, orally or in writing, current events that are of significance in the target culture or that are being studied in another subject. • Students develop and propose solutions to issues and problems that are of concern to members of their own culture and the target cultures through group work. • Students share their analyses and personal reactions to expository and literary texts with peers and/or speakers of the target language (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1999, pp. 42–43). Six foreign languages (French, Japanese, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish) have expanded these benchmark grades to K–16 in order to include the undergraduate years of college or university study. In terms of classroom practice, the goals and content standards are illustrated in a series of learning scenarios for each language. The learning scenarios provide a third-person account of how content standards are met in actual instructional activities or units. The scenarios describe the thematic topic, the setting and classroom activity, unit or project, the content standards targeted by the activity, and reflections on how each targeted content standard is met as well as additional instruction that might further meet these standards. Influence of the standards for foreign language learning. The standards outlined in the Standards for Foreign Language Learning are intended to “describe the knowledge and abilities that all students should acquire” (NSFLEP, 1999, p. 29). They do not go as far as the NCTM standards or the history standards in describing, according to Ravitch (1995a, p.12), what students will learn and what teachers will teach within an academic discipline. They are best described as a curriculum framework (Eisner, 1985, pp. 56–57), which provides a structure, rationale, set of examples, and an orientation to teaching foreign language. These standards are intended to “suggest … the types of content and curricular experiences needed to enable students to achieve the standards” (NSFLEP, 1999, p. 28). As individual states and school districts work to develop their own

< previous page

page_84

next page >

< previous page

page_85

next page >

Page 85 standards for foreign language, the national standards document serves as an example for this voluntary process. The influence of the foreign language standards on decisions of curricular content is evidenced in commercial textbooks. Lafayette and Phillips (1996, pp. 199–200) reported popular textbooks for grades seven through 12 in French, German, and Spanish aligned with the national standards as early as 1996, the year the standards were first formally published. This alignment is not surprising, considering that textbook companies such as D.C. Heath and Company and EMC Publishing Company provided additional funds for the revision and development of the standards. This influence on commercial textbooks has implications for classroom practice. It has been estimated that elementary and secondary students are engaged with commercial textbooks 75 percent of the time spent in classrooms and 90 percent of the time spent on assigned homework (Apple, 1988, p. 231). Following its early lead in aligning specific content with the foreign language standards, the role of commercial instructional materials in standardsbased reform will undoubtedly follow a similar influential role as did ALM texts in foreign language pedagogy. The content of state foreign language standards documents has been influenced by the national foreign language standards (Lewelling and Rennie, 1998, p. 45; NSFLEP, 1999, p. 15). The California Department of Education’s draft foreign language curriculum framework serves as an example. It lists identical goal areas, content standards, and progress indicators as those outlined in the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning (Foreign Language Curriculum Framework and Criteria Committee, 1999). State standards documents for foreign language, similarly, do not list specific content, such as structures, lexicon and cultural phenomena, within their content and performance standards. Like the national standards, these state documents provide a framework generalized to all foreign languages to assist local school districts in curriculum development. This is a pattern unique to foreign language. Although standards in math, science, and history offer more specificity in their content, standards in foreign language rely more heavily on local school curriculum development to define content in specific foreign languages. THE PROBLEM OF OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN IN CONTEMPORARY FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION States and local school districts play a major role in designating which academic subjects will participate in a system to measure accountability in their teaching and learning. If this accountability is designed to reform teaching and learning within the existing education system, then the prospects for the inclusion of foreign language in K–12 education face many obstacles. From a K–12 perspective, foreign language remains a subject of minimal quantity

< previous page

page_85

next page >

< previous page

page_86

next page >

Page 86 and quality in the curriculum. Opportunities to learn that would provide for long-term study leading to greater language proficiency are rare. At the high school level, where foreign language was historically an integral part of the first curricula, its importance has diminished to its exclusion from the “New Basics” and common government measures of academic achievement. While providing a clear and ambitious vision of language learning for all students, the foreign language profession recognizes in the Standards for Foreign Language Learning several immediate problems in the current education system. First, “students typically begin foreign language study in grade nine and continue for only two years” (NSFLEP, 1999, p. 17). This statement means that not only is the study of foreign language generally delayed until the final stage in the K–12 sequence, but this study also tends to be limited to the beginning level. Second, this traditional two-year sequence produces “learners with skills limited to learned expressions and restrained interactions” (NSFLEP, 1999, p. 14). Thus, the competence in a second language specified in Goals 2000 and outlined in the foreign language standards is presently not being achieved. Third, “foreign language programs have not traditionally accommodated all students” (NSFLEP, 1999, p. 98). The idea that only a select grouping of students traditionally enrolled in foreign language study runs counter to the goals of national education reform. Finally, there is a “lack of multiple entry points into foreign language programs that accommodate prior learning” (NSFLEP, 1999, pp. 22–23). This point underscores the lack of experience that the foreign language profession has in facilitating K–12 language learning for all students on a national level. Problems arise not only in what and how to teach but how best to build upon the prior learning and greater language competence that results in earlier foreign language study. It is the vision of the profession that through advocacy and the establishment of model programs, K–16 foreign language study will increasingly become a reality for all students. Opportunity-to-learn standards will be a key issue to achieve such a vision. Opportunity-to-Learn Standards and Goals 2000 Opportunity-to-learn standards (those that provide the necessary educational policy and resources to enable all students to meet challenging content and performance standards) are crucial to achieving the goals of the foreign language standards. With its inclusion of foreign language, Goals 2000 legislation reinforced the ongoing effort to create standards for foreign language with the vision of access in grades K–12. This federal legislation linked these standards to national education reform in three ways. First, it designated foreign language as a core academic subject for all students. Second, it called for students at all grade levels to demonstrate competence in a foreign language, specifically in benchmark grades four, eight, and 12. Third, it further speci-

< previous page

page_86

next page >

< previous page

page_87

next page >

Page 87 fied foreign language as a subject in which the percentage of students demonstrating competence should increase. Although the Standards for Foreign Language Learning do not specifically describe opportunity-to-learn standards, they reflect Goals 2000 on several points: 1. All students in grades K-16 will have access to foreign language study. 2. All students are capable of studying and should study foreign language. 3. This access will provide for longer language learning sequences. 4. Students will have the opportunity to study more than one foreign language (NSFLEP, 1999, pp. 18– 24). Achieving the goals of the foreign language standards will depend largely on the integration of foreign language into core studies in schools (Phillips and Lafayette, 1996, p. 198). State education policy that includes foreign language in the core K–12 curriculum and that provides access and equality of opportunity to foreign language is a necessary step in this process of systemic education reform (O’Day and Smith, 1993, p. 252). These opportunities to learn must be interrelated with content and performance standards (Ravitch, 1995a, p. 13). They will provide the essential state policy and educational resources that will enable all students the opportunity to achieve high standards in foreign language. The problem of OTL standards is rarely noted in the literature on foreign language education reform. Recent ACTFL education series volumes dedicated to the discussion of foreign language standards (Lafayette, 1996; Phillips and Terry, 1999) have not included opportunity-to-learn standards in their chapter topics. Although lacking in the professional literature, there exists evidence to describe this problem in multiple perspectives in the contemporary education system. These perspectives are found in enrollment trends, opportunities to learn by institutional level, and opportunities to learn by state mandate. Surface Enrollment Trends: The Predominance of the High School Foreign language enrollments are disproportionately represented in the K–12 education system. The high school level enrolls the vast majority of these students. These enrollment trends provide a general picture of how the problem of OTL standards is reflected on the surface of national K–12 foreign language education. They reveal the first evidence of a system that focuses resources and policy, in terms of the study of foreign languages, increasingly on the high school level. A national survey of K–12 foreign language programs and enrollments conducted in 1997 by the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) emphasized the need for weighing progress in the teaching of foreign languages with

< previous page

page_87

next page >

< previous page

page_88

next page >

Page 88 national education reform. The survey report concluded: Despite … positive trends, there is still reason for concern about the limited number of K–12 longsequence language programs that are designed to educate students linguistically and culturally to communicate successfully in the U.S. and abroad. Well-articulated elementary and secondary programs are still the exception rather than the rule, and intensive instruction that aims at a high level of proficiency, as outlined in the national standards document, is scarce. (Rhodes and Branaman, 1997) In contrast to the established K–12 sequences in subject-specific disciplines such as English, mathematics, and the sciences, the majority of Americans presently begin and terminate foreign language study at the high school level. According to data from the CAL survey and a recent MLA survey of higher education (Brod and Huber, 1997), enrollments at the high school level, both in terms of number of students and the percentage of students enrolled, outnumber those at all other academic levels combined (see Table 6-2). This situation holds true for total enrollments and when enrollments are restricted to only those students in formal sequential language programs (non-exploratory programs). Surface Enrollment Trends: Limited Study at the Advanced Level Surveys of K–12 foreign language enrollments have reported general increases through the 1990s with limited enrollments at advanced levels of study (Level III or higher). Two sources that indicate changes in the length of sequence are the ACTFL and NAEP studies. The latest ACTFL figures found that 22 percent of high school enrollments were at the advanced level in 2000. While the ACTFL surveys provide enrollment estimates for students studying foreign language in a given year, the NAEP studies utilize large, nationally representative transcript samples to measure the course taking histories of graduating seniors (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1998). By 1998, 30.1 percent of graduates had completed advanced-level study in a language when measured over their entire high school academic career (see Table 6-1). Despite a trend towards more advanced-level study through the 1990s, the reality remains that most students never progress beyond the beginning level. Students, on average, complete a two-year sequence. These enrollment trends reflect underlying issues of access to foreign language by institutional and course levels. Opportunities to Learn by Institutional Level Beginning at the earliest levels of instruction, limited access to the study of foreign language is a critical obstacle to reform. As outlined in Goals 2000 and in the foreign language standards, grades K–8 encompass the first two of

< previous page

page_88

next page >

< previous page

page_89

next page >

Page 89 Table 6-2 Estimated Total Foreign Language Enrollments and Enrollments by Non-Exploratory Foreign Language Programs at the Elementary School, Junior High/Middle School, High School (1997), and College Levels (1995) Elementary Junior/ Middle High School College Total FL enrollments 4,000,000 3,000,000 7,000,000 1,138,772 Total student population 27,100,000 8,200,000 13,500,000 14,389,000 % of student population in FL study 14.8 36.7 51.9 12.6 % of programs non-exploratory 55.0 65.0a 77.0 100.0 Estimated enrollments in non-exploratory FL 2,200,000 1,950,000 5,390,000 1,138,772 aVarying estimates of the percent of junior high/middle school programs that are non-exploratory are found in the literature. Kennedy and De Lorenzo cite estimates of exploratory programs ranging from 20–50 percent from various studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s (1994, 70–71). A median percentage estimate of 35 percent was chosen to represent the percentage of exploratory programs at this level. Based on this estimate, the resultant non-exploratory estimate in this table is 65 percent. Sources : Enrollment data for the elementary, junior high/middle school, and high school levels adapted from Rhodes, N. and Branaman, L. (1999). Foreign Language Instruction in the United States: A National Survey of Elementary and Secondary Schools. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co., Inc. College-level enrollment data are from Brod, R. and Huber, B. J. (1997). “Foreign language enrollments in United States institutions of higher education,” Fall 1995. ADFL Bulletin , 28(2), pp. 55–61. Percent estimates of middle/junior high school non-exploratory programs derived from Kennedy, D. F. and De Lorenzo, W. E. (1994). “Point: The case for exploratory programs in middle/junior high school.” Foreign Language Annals , 27(1), pp. 69–73. three benchmark points when assessments of foreign language competence are to take place in fourth and eighth grade. It is estimated, however, that only 25–30 percent of elementary and middle/junior high school students have access to foreign language learning (Brown, 1994, p. 165; Rhodes and Branaman, 1999; Met, 1994, p. 44). Access in grades K–8 is also a function of programmatic type. Exploratory language programs, for example, might offer students a sampling of foreign

< previous page

page_89

next page >

< previous page

page_90

next page >

Page 90 languages or languages without functional competence as their primary goal. These programs are often not articulated within a sequenced K–8-length program of study. More rare are formal sequential programs—those that provide a more intense and lengthened learning experience in one language with the goal of increased competence. Goals 2000 and the foreign language standards indicate a preference for formal sequential study at these early levels as part of an articulated, extended learning sequence (NSFLEP, 1999, p. 22). The variety of programmatic types that exists at the elementary school level is particularly numerous: exploratory (FLEX), sequential (FLES), immersion, before and after school programs, multiple language, and single language3. It is estimated that only 21% of elementary programs are formal sequential in design (Rhodes and Branaman, 1999). The existence of both exploratory and formal sequential programs, particularly at the middle/junior high school level, makes the interpretation of enrollment data difficult. For example, national surveys conducted by the ACTFL found that the percentage of seventh and eighth graders studying a foreign language increased in the past decade from 8.5 percent in 1985 to 14.7 percent in 2000—numbers that would swell the numbers of beginning-level students if included with high school enrollment data (Dandonoli, 1987, p. 470; Draper and Hicks, 2002, p. 1). Estimates of the percentage of junior high/middle school programs that are exploratory range from 20–50 percent (Kennedy and De Lorenzo, 1994, pp. 70–71). Met has cautioned that enrollment estimates at this level might be inflated by a broad interpretation of what constitutes “studying” a foreign language (1994, p. 44). Current national surveys, for example, do not distinguish between one-semester or yearlong exploratory courses and sequential or multi-year programs that articulate into the high school level. Complicating this programmatic concern is the growing popularity of middle schools. The middle school philosophy seeks to provide all students opportunities to succeed in areas other than the traditional core subjects (Schurr, Thomason and Thomason, 1996, p. 99). Foreign language is often grouped with the arts as an exploratory subject in middle schools, removing it as a core required or elective subject. In a survey of 104 state and school district foreign language supervisors, Met notes the “detrimental” impact that the middle school philosophy has on long-term study as perceived by a number of respondents (1994, pp. 46–47). Students in grades seven and eight studying under a middle school philosophy enroll in sequential foreign language study at a lower rate that those in junior high schools (Epstein and MacIver, 1992, cited in Met, 1994, p. 46; Met, 1995, pp. 78–80). This issue is certain to remain a complicating factor for the establishment of longer learning sequences as the popularity of middle schools challenge the traditional junior high school. The number of schools with the prototypical middleschool grade range (grades 4–6 or 6–8) increased by 43 percent while the number of schools with the prototypical junior high grade range (grades 7–8

< previous page

page_90

next page >

< previous page

page_91

next page >

Page 91 or 7–9) decreased by 27 percent from 1988 to 1998 (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). The national shift from junior high to middle school will continue to fuel debate over the merits of sequential and exploratory language programs at this level and will affect the ability to provide longer formal language learning sequences (see Kennedy and De Lorenzo, 1994 and Knop and Sandrock, 1994 for such a debate). Opportunities to Learn by Course Level in High School Access to foreign language study at the high school level provides the majority of students the opportunity to study at least one language for a period of one to four years. In many schools, this access is limited to only the beginning level. The CAL survey found that 86 percent of high schools offered foreign language study in 1997. Finn (1998), using NAEP data, studied the course-taking patterns of high school seniors and school offerings in foreign language for the 1994 school year. This study found that all high schools represented in the data offered at least one foreign language (p. 292). 26.7 percent of public and 47.0 percent of private schools, however, did not offer advanced-level courses (Levels III or higher) (Finn, p. 300, Table 2). Limited access to foreign language study by level, in addition to problems of access by institutional level, begins to explain enrollment trends. State education policy further contributes to these trends. Opportunities to Learn by State Mandate State education policy mandating foreign language instruction in schools favors the study of language in high school rather than in grades K–8 and targets students in higher academic tracks for longer sequences. These mandates consist of two types. “Opportunity mandates” are those that require specific school levels to offer foreign language study as an elective. In terms of the academic level and number of years offered, these mandates are not uniform across states nor do they guarantee that all students will study a foreign language. Finn (1998), for example, found that students’ socioeconomic status (SES) accounted for differences in the number of years of foreign language completed by students despite uniform foreign language offerings. The second type of mandate, “seat-time mandates,” are found in states that have prescribed the number of years that students must complete in a foreign language in order to graduate from high school or to graduate within a specific academic track. This type of mandate rarely specifies the proficiency level or specific courses that students must complete, nor does it typically apply to the entire school population. Many states have implemented both opportunity and seat-time mandates. In several states, the number of years of foreign language that schools are

< previous page

page_91

next page >

< previous page

page_92

next page >

Page 92 required to offer is actually less than optional state requirements for high school graduation within a higher academic track. For example, two neighboring school districts might be required to offer two years of a foreign language. Only one of these school districts might offer four years within an optional state-sanctioned honors diploma track, however. The analysis of such mandates existing in each state describes the equity of learning opportunities for foreign language study. Appendix G summarizes the opportunity and seat-time foreign language mandates in each state. The majority of these mandates are found at the high school level. Fewer exist at the middle/junior high school level, and the elementary level contains the fewest states with mandates. Opportunity mandates are the most frequent of the two types. Thirty-eight states have opportunity mandates at the high school level, eight at the middle/junior high school level, and two at the elementary school level. In cases where states require high schools to offer foreign language, these mandates typically consist of a two-year sequence. This situation is the case in 20 of the listed mandates. Focusing on seat-time mandates, we find several trends: 1. The majority of seat-time mandates are found at the high school level. 2. When high school seat-time mandates exist, they consist of two or three years. Of the 25 seat-time mandates, 13 consisted of one or two years and nine consisted of three years. 3. Few states require all students to study foreign language in order to graduate from high school. Only three states fit this description: Washington, D.C. and New York require two years, and has in place a plan to require three years4. 4. Most seat-time mandates target students in college preparatory or higher academic tracks. Of the 25 seat-time mandates identified, 18 targeted students in such tracks. 5. Many seat-time mandates are related to higher academic tracks and are elective in nature. Foreign language is one of several subjects that students can choose to complete a higher academic track in eight of 18 such mandates. 6. The majority of these seat-time mandates are satisfied by course completion rather than by proficiency or performance in the foreign language. Only three states (Minnesota, New York, and Texas) require students to demonstrate foreign language competence on a performance or proficiency outcomes test. Kentucky requires students to pass an AP test if they elect foreign language as one of three AP tests that they must pass to receive the Commonwealth Diploma (National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages [NCSSFL], 1994, pp. 64 and 68; U.S. Department of Education, 1999). State education policy affecting other subject disciplines targets a greater proportion of the general student population. National Center for Educational Statistics (1999) data detail numerous seat-time mandates in other states for language arts, math, science, and social studies for all students regardless of academic track (see Table 6-3). While only three states

< previous page

page_92

next page >

< previous page

page_93

next page >

Page 93 require all high school students to study foreign language as a seat-time mandate, more than 40 states require all students to complete coursework in math, science, and social studies. Students in 39 states must complete coursework in language arts. These requirements range from an average of 2.30 years in science to 3.82 years in language arts. Seat-time mandates in many of these states require even more years in these subjects to satisfy the requirements of college preparatory and higher academic tracks. These mandates by subject discipline reflect national course-taking patterns in each of these subjects. In 1994, high school seniors graduated with an average of 1.83 years completed in foreign language. These students averaged more than four years in language arts coursework and more than three in math, science, and social studies (see Table 6-4). Despite posting twice as much growth in the average number of years completed among these five subjects from 1982 to 1994, foreign language remains the least-studied of the academic subjects. The Response within the Foreign Language Standards The problem of opportunities to learn in foreign language education is recognized in the foreign language standards. This document expresses optimism for future changes in education, particularly at the high school level. “Unfortunately, today many students still have their first foreign language experience in high school, but soon that level will be primarily for students who want to learn a third or fourth language” (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project [NSFLEP], 1999, p. 21). Rather than develop standards only for high school students, the standards task force aligned itself with projects in other subject disciplines and Goals 2000. This deliberate decision to extend the learning sequence to K–12 education was made because it was believed that to focus solely on standards at the high school level would result in the “ … los[s of] any possibility of a stronger position in the core curriculum” (NSFLEP, 1999, p. 97). Like content and performance standards, it will be up to individual states and local school districts to develop opportunity-to-learn standards—the education policy that will work to include foreign language in grades K–12. How and in what form this change in the education system will take place is unclear from the standards document. In terms of the three types of standards, the Standards for Foreign Language Learning document offers a blueprint for the selection of content and development of performance assessments. The problem of opportunity-to-learn standards is recognized only as a matter of inclusion of foreign language with other subject disciplines in standards-based reform. The profession has produced a standards document, but it has yet to address the one problem that is critical to providing K–12 foreign language education to all students.

< previous page

page_93

next page >

< previous page

page_94

next page >

Page 94 Table 6-3 State Seat-Time Mandates in Foreign Language, Language Arts, Math, Physical Education, Science, and Social Studies for All Students Regardless of Academic Track Number of States by Subject aNumber of Years RequiredForeign LanguageLanguage ArtsMathPhysical EducationScienceSocial Studies 1 0 0 0 16 1 1 1.25 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 7 0 1 2 2 0 27 10 30 16 2.5 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 1 7 15 0 10 21 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 32 2 2 2 3 4.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 Total States 3 39 44 39 43 47 Average Years 2.33 3.82 2.43 1.67 2.30 2.55 aYears are represented as Carnegie units in the original data. One academic year in this table is equivalent to one Carnegie unit. Note: Data adapted from U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Digest of Education Statistics 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 1999–036, pp. 159–166, Table 154. CONCLUSION: OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN IN THE COMING DECADES The secondary school curriculum is finite in the sense that choices must be made as to which subjects are to be prioritized to fit into a student’s school day (Eisner, 1985). Over the past 100 years, periods of increased course taking in foreign language have occurred when secondary education reform has acted to narrow the required or core curriculum to academic subjects. This situation was the case at the end of the century as states raised high school graduation requirements after A Nation at Risk and increasingly replaced seat-time mandates with performance-based assessments during the period

< previous page

page_94

next page >

< previous page

page_95

next page >

Page 95 Table 6-4 Mean Number of Credits (Carnegie Units) Earned in Academic Courses in 1994, 1990, 1987, and 1982 Subject Field 1994 Graduates1990 Graduates1987 Graduates 1982 Graduates % Change 1982–1994 Fine Arts Mean 1.64 1.52 1.42 1.44 +12.2 S.E. 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 Foreign Mean 1.83 1.66 1.49 1.08 +41.0 Languages S.E. 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 Language Mean 4.23 4.12 4.08 3.93 +7.1 Arts S.E. 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 Math Mean 3.41 3.24 3.10 2.64 +22.6 S.E. 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 Physical Mean 2.21 2.25 2.20 2.29 –3.6 Education S.E. 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 Science Mean 3.06 2.78 2.56 2.22 +27.5 S.E. 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 Social Mean 3.59 3.52 3.39 3.24 +9.7 Studies S.E. 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 aComputer Mean 0.65 0.54 0.49 0.14 +78.5 Studies S.E. 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 aOne Carnegie unit is equivalent to the completion of a course meeting for one period a day, five days a week, for the entire school year. Source : Adapted from National Center for Education Statistics (1998). The 1994 High School Transcript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1994, 1990, 1987, and 1982 High School Graduates (Revised) . Washington, D.C.: Author, Appendix 10, p. 58, Table 8. NCES 98-532. of standards-based reform. During this period, high school graduates entered higher education in record numbers. By 1998, 65.7 percent of graduates enrolled in a post-secondary institution—40.9 percent in a four-year college or a university (U.S. Department of Education, 1998, p. 46). As academic course taking and college entrance increased, foreign language benefited from a windfall in enrollment. Despite unprecedented growth in overall enrollments and gains in length of study, the majority of high school students continued to complete on average only two years in a foreign language. Shifting college requirements reinforced this trend in beginning-level study. Four-year institutions of higher education increasingly required foreign language as a graduation requirement rather than an entrance requirement for new students. From

< previous page

page_95

next page >

< previous page

page_96

next page >

Page 96 1982 to 1987, the percentage of these institutions requiring any amount of foreign language study for entrance rose from 14.1 percent to 20.3 percent. This percentage remained stable at 20.7 percent through 1994 (Brod and Huber, 1996, p. 41). On the other hand, the percentage of these institutions requiring foreign language as an exit, or degree, requirement rose sharply from 47.4 percent to 58.1 percent (1982 to 1987) and then again to 67.5 percent in 1994 (Brod and Huber, 1996, p. 41). Rather than require more foreign language, standards for entrance into higher education were raised primarily through higher minimum standardized test scores on exams such as the SAT and ACT (Ravitch, 1995a, p. 53). The central role that foreign language played in the secondary school curriculum in the early 1900s was not sustained through the end of the century. Instead, foreign language education affirmed itself in the national curriculum through the 1990s in other ways: its inclusion in federal reform initiatives; the creation of national voluntary standards congruent with the goals of federal reform; the sustained focus on performance in language use; and the influence that this reform had on pedagogical materials, practices, and decisions at the state and local levels. All of these forms of change speak to content and performance standards in some way—generally as a framework for the decision-making process of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. They do not speak to the unique cycles of interest and enrollment change that characterize foreign language throughout the history of curriculum reform. It is only the final form of the standard, opportunity-to-learn, that would provide for an extended K–12 foreign language learning sequence and the relative curricular stability that English, math, and science have experienced in education. The challenge of securing necessary financial and political resources to achieve this reform goal on a national scale remains elusive within the history of education. It also represents a critical obstacle to continued growth in foreign language education in the coming decades. NOTES 1. The National Center for Education Statistics uses the following definitions for distinguishing a student program. “Academic” means that the student has earned at least 12 credits in the following core course areas: English, social studies, and mathematics and/or science and has fewer than three credits in any specific labor market preparation field. “Vocational” means that the student has earned at least three credits in a single specific labor market preparation field but has fewer than 12 credits in the academic fields of English, social studies, mathematics, and science. “Both” means that the student has earned at least 12 credits in English, social studies, and mathematics and/or science and has earned at least three credits in a specific labor market preparation field. “Neither” means that the student has not met these course credit requirements for either the academic or the vocational track (NCES, 1998). 2. Advanced courses for these subject areas include any courses classified as honors in English. For math, courses include the following: Algebra III, algebra/trigonometry, algebra/analytical geometry, trigonometry, trigonometry/solid geometry, analytical geometry, lin-

< previous page

page_96

next page >

< previous page

page_97

next page >

Page 97 ear algebra, probability, probability/statistics, statistics, statistics (other), or an independent study, precalculus, or an introduction to analysis, AP calculus, calculus, or calculus/analytical geometry. Courses for science include the following: International Baccalaureate (IB) Biology 2, IB Biology 3, AP biology, field biology, genetics, biopsychology, biology seminar, biochemistry and biophysics, biochemistry, botany, cell and molecular biology, cell biology, microbiology, anatomy, and miscellaneous specialized areas of life sciences, level I chemistry or physics, Chemistry 2, IB Chemistry 2, IB Chemistry 3, AP chemistry, Physics 2, IB physics, AP Physics B, AP Physics C (mechanics), AP Physics C (electricity/magnetism), and Physics 2 without calculus (U.S. Department of Education, 2001, p. 199– 206). The following are the changes in the percentage of all public high school students enrolled in advanced courses by subject from 1994 to 1998: English 36.3 percent to 38.3 percent, math 51.8 percent to 57.2 percent, and science 23.8 percent to 24.3 percent (United States Department of Education, 2001, p. 156). 3. Here, general descriptions are used. The term FLEX stands for exploratory foreign language, and FLES stands for for foreign language in the elementary school. FLES can also indicate a program with the primary focus on formal sequenced instruction in one language. 4. Oregon will require all high school students to complete two years of a foreign language or sign language and to demonstrate a level of proficiency as determined by individual school districts by the end of the 2001–2002 school year. Other states reviewed in Chapter 7 have initiated standards-based reform that will require foreign language study of all students in future academic years.

< previous page

page_97

next page >

< previous page

page_98

next page >

page_98

next page >

Page 98 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_99

next page >

Page 99 7 Lasting Change in Foreign Language: Historical Trends, Contemporary Approaches, and Education Policy Lasting change in education has historically been the result of social concerns for problems in education and the support of a broad base of constituencies that rally around reform to address these problems (O’Neil, 2000, p. 7). The various periods of reform reviewed in the previous chapters provide numerous examples of policy making that has brought lasting change in general education: the comprehensive high school, equity in education, and the new basics. Foreign language has at times been a focal point of reform and at other times an afterthought. The persistence of certain trends in foreign language throughout the history of education suggests obstacles to standards-based initiatives. How should initiatives address these trends? History has a way of catching up with lofty goals and predictions for change. If there is to be lasting change in foreign language education, then the implications of these trends must be weighed in the development of education policy. How will the goal (outlined in national standards) of a longer language-learning sequence for all students be transformed as policy making shifts to educational practice? This chapter looks at the ways in which history is shaping current standards-based initiatives in states and school districts. It begins with a review of six interrelated trends in foreign language that have persisted through eight periods of education reform. Next, standards-based initiatives are summarized for the various ways in which foreign language is incorporated. Finally, policy implications are proposed that link historical trends with new approaches to foreign language education.

< previous page

page_99

next page >

< previous page

page_100

next page >

Page 100 SIX INTERRELATED HISTORICAL TRENDS: FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN EDUCATION REFORM Six historical trends characterize foreign language in the secondary school curriculum from its beginnings in Latin grammar schools to the predominance of public high schools. A review of these interrelated trends serves to describe issues relevant to contemporary reform. This historical context is a necessary element to the development of lasting education policy. Absence or Reduction of Foreign Language in General or Basic Education Beginning with the earliest forms of public education, the town school and the Latin grammar school, foreign language has been absent or reduced in the curriculum when the focus on education is on life and vocation. The implications of education for life and vocation versus leadership and higher education have shaped the place and purpose of foreign language in the curriculum. Apart from instances when a language other than English served as the medium of instruction in the various ethnic communities supporting a town school or as a strategy for academic advancement in various bilingual school contexts, the curriculum of general or basic education has historically favored other academic subjects over foreign language. At regular intermediary points in the history of secondary education, this trend was reflected in different ways. Under the failed system of academies, the inclusion of foreign language instruction for vocational degrees was reduced as these private institutions became increasingly college preparatory in mission, reduced programmatic tracks for the non-college bound, and served a smaller proportion of the school population. The goals proposed by the Committee of Ten were expressly designed for a minute proportion of the adolescent population, rendering the prominence of foreign language in its proposed curriculum irrelevant in the face of a growing and changing student population. The Cardinal Principles served to frame progressive reforms that placed a premium on preparing students to be full participants in society. These reforms favored English as a common language and the transformation of traditional academic subjects towards general education. In a similar way, the reform period of life adjustment further distanced foreign language from the core curriculum by continuing the differentiation and expansion of the curriculum towards general education. The permanence of vocational and general studies tracks in the high school curriculum through contemporary periods of reform remain consistent with the reduced role of foreign language in favor of literacy, social studies, math, and science over the past 100 years.

< previous page

page_100

next page >

< previous page

page_101

next page >

Page 101 Resistance of Foreign Language to Differentiation Foreign language has been resistant to change during periods of education reform supporting the differentiation of subject disciplines through the creation of general and applied course offerings. This situation was particularly the case during the period of progressive reforms and life adjustment from the 1920s through the 1940s. This formative period in programmatic tracking and new course development targeted the massive demographic changes in secondary education. The fall of foreign language during this period represents a critical opportunity lost that could have served to transform the purpose of language study from college preparation to a fundamental element of general education. The lack of a clear and unified policy to lead such change in this subject discipline remains a relevant issue today. Voices outside the foreign language profession have called for the development of general foreign language courses during periods of reform. Both Prosser in the 1940s and Conant in the 1950s authored such proposals. Foreign language-related courses of general or applied nature appeared in the secondary school curriculum during these decades in the form of civilization and literature courses1. However, courses of an explicit general or applied nature remain rare in secondary education despite the fact that most students begin the study of a language at this level. A 1997 national survey of secondary school programs found that 94% of all foreign language courses offered in high schools are traditional courses focused on skills development (Rhodes and Branaman, 1999, p. 23). The trend in resistance to differentiation reflects a lack of collective professional experience in the ways English, math, science, and social studies have worked to secure their place in the required curriculum for all high school students. Unique Enrollment Losses Linked to Curriculum Reform The resistance to change in foreign language is linked to losses in enrollments unique to this subject area during reform periods of curriculum differentiation and expansion. The converse also applies. When education reform has emphasized a narrowing of the curriculum towards traditional academic subjects and course offerings, enrollments in foreign language have risen. In comparison with other subject disciplines during the same reform periods, foreign language has experienced a greater variance either in losses or gains or in an amplification of general trends seen in other subjects. For example, during the 1940s enrollments in foreign language dropped to a historic low while math and science retained enrollment levels through increased enrollments in general studies courses during progressive reforms

< previous page

page_101

next page >

< previous page

page_102

next page >

Page 102 (see Appendix F). In the 1980s, the percentage increase in credits earned in foreign language was double the rates in math and science under the academic-focused reforms encouraged by A Nation at Risk (see Table 6-3 in this book). Foreign language has proven to be more vulnerable to periods of education reform than other academic subjects, resulting in the tremendous enrollment losses and gains evidenced throughout history. Persistent Beginning-Level Enrollments The vast majority of foreign language enrollments in high schools are at the beginning-level (years one and two). This trend has persisted over the past 100 years despite periods of education reform targeting the study of languages. Several periods demonstrate the resiliency of this trend to change. In 1905, 81.3 percent of the high school population was enrolled in foreign language. The curriculum proposed by the Committee of Ten during this period emphasized the study of classical and modern languages as a central component to secondary education. Even liberal estimates2 indicate that no more than 31 percent of these enrollments were at the advanced level. Similarly, when enrollments peaked to 32.2 percent in 1963 under NDEA funding for foreign language education initiatives, only 13.4 percent of enrollments was at the advanced level. This trend continues despite the contemporary and historic growth in language study—the majority of Americans never advance beyond a beginning-level program of study in high school. This beginning-level trend serves many purposes in the present education system: terminal foreign language study, general study of language and culture, preparation for advanced-level study, and preparation for college. Each purpose has its foundations in the history of secondary education and curriculum reform. Each is a legitimate endeavor within the context of language study. None has emerged as the result of purposeful foreign language education policy development, however. Historical precedence indicates that this trend will remain for the undetermined future. The lack of education policy aimed at the development of goals consistent with the many purposes of this predominant beginning level will ensure the continued drift of foreign language in the curriculum for the foreseeable future. Embodiment of Foreign Language Education in a Single Language The shift from classical to modern languages in secondary education is embodied in the chronological transition from one individual foreign language to another. Each has occupied its place in the secondary school curriculum at a point in history. Beneath the classical to modern language surface, the emergence of individual languages reflects the socio-historical

< previous page

page_102

next page >

< previous page

page_103

next page >

Page 103 process of education reform (Herman, 2002). Each language has served education reform in unique ways. Appendix A summarizes this transition in terms of enrollment. From the early 1890s to 1900, Latin accounted for a majority of enrollments with a high of 68.3 percent in 1896. From this point, enrollments in German steadily increased and led the initial shift toward modern language study in secondary education. By 1914, Latin accounted for 50.8 percent of enrollments and German 33.2 percent. After the effects of World War I and the collapse of German enrollment, Spanish quickly emerged and teamed with French to continue the replacement of classical with modern language study. French enrollments peaked in 1933 at 30.2 percent. After World War II, Spanish became the first modern language to surpass Latin when enrollments reached 37.5 percent in 1948. Spanish has since enrolled the largest proportion of students with a majority rate of 68.8 percent in 2000. Specific periods of education reform brought about by the many societal changes in the United States and the world relate to each of these changes in language. Until 1911, the recommendations made by the Committee of Ten remained the focus of annual federal education reports. Classical languages, predominantly Latin, were a traditional means for educational advancement in this curriculum based on a foundation in foreign language study. As the new century progressed, secondary education experienced the growing pains of an institution enrolling an increasingly greater proportion of adolescents with a broader range of post-secondary needs. This transition relied on modern languages to fulfill the traditional function of foreign language in the curriculum. German was the first modern language to rival Latin. Several factors contributed to gains in German as it led this transition prior to World War I (Childers, 1964, p. 8). A rich tradition of German language existed, both as heritage education and traditional language instruction, in local schools and in the many communities with populations of German decent. German also enjoyed a high prestige factor through its association with the university system in Germany and as its basis as a framework for a similar system in the United States. It served as the primary modern language of choice in a system of secondary education still situated in the curriculum framed by the Committee of Ten. After World War I, French and Spanish inherited the majority of modern language enrollments during a period when education reform facilitated the growth and expansion of the curriculum in support of subject disciplines other than foreign language. Under progressive reforms after the release of the Cardinal Principles and continued curriculum reform during life adjustment, French and Spanish assumed a majority proportion of enrollments at a time when the study of language in high school was declining and relegated to elective status. Foreign language was becoming less vital to entrance into higher education and lacked a clear mission as its place and purpose in the secondary curriculum.

< previous page

page_103

next page >

< previous page

page_104

next page >

Page 104 Education reform under NDEA served to fortify national defense through a curriculum focused on traditional academic subjects. Although all modern languages benefited from increased enrollments, Spanish emerged as the premier language. Economic, political, cultural influences, and advantages contributed to its rise and continued dominance in foreign language education. Spanish fulfills the traditional college preparatory mission of foreign language with added value. Its relevance to the goals of recent periods of education reform, A Nation at Risk and the standards movement, has ensured its continued rise. Increasing Ability to Enroll All Adolescents in Foreign Language The increasing ability of secondary education to enroll all students in language is linked to the historical process of education reform. Traditional interpretations identify the early 1900s as a period when most students studied language as a central component in their education. This notion of a “golden age” in history does not account for the transformation of secondary education, which has resulted in the increasing capacity of the public high school to educate all of America’s youth. Within the context of historical change, the reverse is found in foreign language—by the end of the century, more students were studying language within a curriculum that was serving broader societal interests. Contrasted with public education at the turn of the century, the public high school curriculum is one that has as its central goal the enrollment and education of all adolescents. Building on this transformation of secondary education, contemporary reform underscores the need to lengthen learning sequences in the subject disciplines for all students. This history of secondary education is reflected in foreign language enrollment data standardized to the adolescent population over time. As more youth attended public high schools, more studied language. This basic trend holds true from the 1900s to the early 1970s, when the percentage of adolescents attending public high schools stabilized at the 90 percent level. By the final decades of the 20th century, foreign language enjoyed its greatest achievements in secondary education. Students in greater numbers, in greater proportions, and in a variety of languages and learning contexts enrolled in foreign language. The future of foreign language education will continue to be dependent on reforms that will bring more students to this subject area within the contemporary context of a finite high school curriculum and student population. OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN THROUGH STANDARDS-BASED REFORM IN STATES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS To better understand how these six historical trends impact education policy, we present recent standards-based education reform initiatives in selected

< previous page

page_104

next page >

< previous page

page_105

next page >

Page 105 states and school districts for their differing approaches to foreign language education. The broad range of approaches highlights contemporary problems for the inclusion of foreign language in reform and therefore provides the most current of contexts to the discussion of lasting change in foreign language education. Three states (New York, Oregon, and New Jersey) and two school districts (Springfield Public Schools and Chicago Public Schools) provide a national snapshot of reform laws as they relate to opportunity and seat-time mandates, graduation requirements, and assessment in standards-based reform. They represent five different approaches to foreign language in the K–12 curriculum. Despite the varying approaches of these states and school districts that we will present, there are several commonalties in how each applies standards-based reform to foreign language. Historical trends are reflected in two common ways. First, each entity limits seat-time mandates for all students to two years in high school. Even when high school graduation is dependent upon the passage of a foreign language achievement or a proficiency test, the high school year equivalent considered necessary to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills for passage is two years. Second, upper-level foreign language study continues to be related to college entrance. This situation is seen in articulation efforts between college entrance exams and high school curricula in Oregon, for example, and graduation certificate and diploma requirements for various tracks in the states and subsequently applied in the school districts. The contemporary approaches to foreign language education share other commonalties. K–8 foreign language education is a focus of reform as a means to ensure that more students achieve high school requirements and standards. Approaches include seat-time mandates for all students ranging from formal programs at each elementary and middle school leading to ninth grade to those focusing solely on the middle/junior high school grades. A second commonality is the use of assessment to drive curricular change. This trend is one of establishing benchmark grades and performance-based statewide assessments while allowing local school districts the freedom to decide the programmatic sequence and length judged best to prepare students for these assessments. Finally, American Sign Language (ASL) has emerged as a course offering that can be used to satisfy foreign language requirements. Public law in each of the three states specifically states that ASL must be recognized towards the satisfaction of foreign language requirements. Each of the following summaries reflects the historical implications of current reform as it applies to the teaching and study of languages in schools. New York: Earlier Opportunities to Learn for Longer Sequences Overview. In the state of New York, the push towards standards in K–12 education reflected national reform trends of the 1980s and 1990s. The

< previous page

page_105

next page >

< previous page

page_106

next page >

Page 106 Board of Regents established the Regents Goals for Elementary and Secondary School Students in 1984. The board outlined broad educational aims for all students that addressed all content areas. These goals were revised in 1991 to include goals for middle school students. They were worded as general expectations without specifying assessment criteria (New York State Department of Education, 1995, p. 64). Standards documents for each subject discipline were developed based on these comprehensive goals. The New York Standards for Languages Other Than English were published in 1995. This document set standards for foreign language learning in the state, including ASL, organized by two fundamental regents goals: Goal 1: Each student will master communication and computation skills as a foundation to: 1.6 Speak, listen to, read, and write at least one language other than English Goal 3: Each student will acquire knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the artistic, cultural, and intellectual accomplishments of civilization, and develop the skills to express personal artistic talents (New York State Department of Education, 1995, p. 64). State curricular frameworks and assessments for foreign languages adapted these two goals to produce standards for performance assessments at the elementary, middle, and high school levels: Standard 1: Students will be able to use a language other than English for communication. Standard 2: Students will develop cross-cultural skills and understandings (New York State Department of Education, 1995, p. 5). Seat-time mandates . In November 1997, the Board of Regents mandated changes to graduation requirements for all high school students seeking a standard diploma. Students would be required to complete three years of foreign language study and pass regents exams to earn a standard high school diploma. This requirement had previously been mandated only for the college-preparatory regents diploma, which 40 percent of high school graduates earned (Hendrie, 1997a). This change was to affect students entering ninth grade beginning in the year 2001. Eleven days after this mandate was issued, the Board of Regents repealed it upon dissent from the State Commissioner of Education, Richard P. Mills, and from educators across the state. Their opposition cited the fact that ninth grade students beginning in 2001, earning the standard diploma, were already expected to pass stringent exams in English, math, social studies, and science. A second concern was the lack of qualified teachers to ensure that all students had access to the study of foreign language. It was recommended that students be required to complete or test out of the equivalent of one year of foreign language study for the standard diploma (Hendrie, 1997b). Thus, seat-time mandates at the high school level applying to all students reflected the historical trends of beginning-level study. Seat-time mandates in grades K–8. New York state law mandated by the Board of Regents has additionally focused on the elementary and

< previous page

page_106

next page >

< previous page

page_107

next page >

Page 107 middle/junior high school years as a means to raise student competence and to lengthen learning sequences. Students are required to complete at least two units of foreign language study in grades K– 9. These two units can be satisfied through the completion of one full year of study of two languages or two full years of one language. Section 100.2 (d) Language other than English requirements. (1) Public school students first entering grade nine in 1988 or 1989 shall have completed at least one unit of study in a language other than English at some time during grades kindergarten through nine. Public school students first entering grade nine in 1990 and thereafter shall have completed at least two units of study in a language other than English at some time during grades kindergarten through nine. Such requirements shall be met subject to the following provisions: (i) Such unit of study requirements in a language other than English may be in more than one language, provided that at least one half of the required units of study shall be in a single language. (ii) Such unit of study requirements in a language other than English shall be offered in segments of not less than a half unit of study per school year (New York State Department of Education, 1999). State law accounts for various articulation scenarios and a means for satisfaction of these requirements. In the case that a student enters a school from another state in grade seven, they will be required to complete this two-year foreign language requirement prior to high school graduation. In the case they enter a New York school having completed ninth grade in another state, they will be exempt from this requirement. Seat-time mandates can also be satisfied through the completion of a language proficiency assessment (New York State Department of Education, 1999, Section 100.2, points d. iv, v, and vi). These state seat-time mandates afford school districts the flexibility to create learning sequences that are at the minimum two years in length and span the middle/junior high school to high school grades without specifying a rigid grade sequence. Opportunity mandates . Opportunity-to-learn mandates affecting foreign language study in New York target grades eight and nine. Like seat-time mandates, they reflect a historical two-year minimum. These mandates require all school districts to offer foreign language study no later than grade eight in the K–12 sequence. Seat-time mandates and assessments target ninth grade as the completion point for foreign language study for all students. Section 100.2 (2) Public school districts may commence language other than English instruction at any grade level prior to grade eight but shall do so no later than the beginning of grade eight so that students are provided the required two units of study by the end of grade nine (New York State Department of Education, 1999).

< previous page

page_107

next page >

< previous page

page_108

next page >

Page 108 An incentive for earlier foreign language study prior to eighth grade, particularly at the elementary level, is the preparation that this study provides students for the ninth grade foreign language assessment. The completion of foreign language coursework and mandatory assessment by ninth grade discourages delayed study of foreign languages at the secondary level and opens options for continued study into advanced levels. Graduation requirements . High school graduation requirements demand increasingly more foreign language study as the diploma options orient students towards college entrance. The transition to new graduation requirements has been scheduled to include more foreign language. To graduate from high school with a standard diploma, students entering ninth grade prior to the 2001–2002 school year must have passed the ninth grade foreign language assessment and completed 18 units of credit in the following courses: English (four units) Social studies (three units) Math (one unit) Science (two units) Arts (one unit) Health (one-half unit) (New York State Department of Education, 1999, Section 100.5, Points 2 and 3). Students entering ninth grade during the 2001–2002 school year are required to complete 22 units of credit including two units in physical education. These requirements include an additional unit in social studies, science, and two additional units in math (New York State Department of Education, 1999, Section 100.5, Points 2 and 3). Students graduating with a standard diploma must past Regents competency tests in English, social studies, math, and science. To receive the more rigorous Regent’s diploma, students entering ninth grade prior to the 2001–2002 school year must complete the requirements of the standard diploma in addition to advanced-level study in self-selected subjects: (a) [Students must complete] … a sequence of three units of credit in each of two career and technical education subjects, or in each of two languages other than English, or in each of two of the following areas: mathematics, science, a language other than English, career and technical education, art or music. Regents comprehensive exams must be passed in the subjects studied (New York State Department of Education, 1999, Section 105.5, Point 8.b.2.a). Students entering ninth grade during the 2001–2002 school year have the option of studies toward the Regents diploma and the Regents diploma with an advanced designation. To earn the Regents diploma, students must com-

< previous page

page_108

next page >

< previous page

page_109

next page >

Page 109 plete the 22 units described and pass five selected Regents assessments. To earn the Regents diploma with an advanced designation, the student must complete: (1) The requirements of the Regents diploma (2) Additional Regents exams in math and science (3) Two additional units of a foreign language (4) The Regents proficiency exam in the foreign language (New York State Department of Education, 1999, Section 100.5, Point 7.v.a-c.) Thus, although requirements for the standard diploma do not require all students to study foreign language in high school, a passing score on the ninth grade assessment of foreign language competence is required. School districts have the option of deciding when in the K–9 sequence two years of foreign language study must be completed to align with the ninth grade assessment. The Regent’s diploma also gives students the option of bypassing foreign language study for technical and humanities courses at the high school level. In contrast to these two diploma options is the Regent’s diploma with advanced distinction. To graduate with this diploma, students must complete two additional years of foreign language study and pass a second Regent’s exam of foreign language competence. Study at the advanced level . The inclusion of foreign language in standards-based reform in New York State has resulted in new requirements for its mandatory study. These requirements focus on the beginning level as students enter high school. Students will have the option of continued foreign language study as they choose courses to fulfill the Regent’s diploma or pursue the Regent’s diploma with distinction. In this system, the growth in foreign language enrollments at the advanced level will be contingent upon two factors: 1) greater numbers of students electing the study of foreign language or studying within a higher academic track and 2) the policy of local school districts to implement programs earlier in the K–9 sequence. These contingencies remain consistent with the historical trends in foreign language education. New York education law, however, has created incentives for longer learning sequences through strategically placed seat-time mandates in K–8 and an assessment requirement early in the high school sequence. Oregon: Integration of Higher Education for Advance-Level Study Overview. In the early 1980s, the state of Oregon began initiatives in standards-based education reform. A state board of education was appointed by the governor to develop recommendations for this reform. The board adopted the Oregon Action Plan for Excellence in 1984. It called for the creation of goals defining what K–12 students should be able to do, an assessment system

< previous page

page_109

next page >

< previous page

page_110

next page >

Page 110 to measure students’ performance against these goals, and a system for taking corrective action when students failed to meet these goals. Although this reform emphasized state leadership, it reinforced the belief that reform should be locally based because course content, format, materials, and teaching methods are controlled at the school district level (Oregon Department of Education, 1999a). In 1991, the Oregon legislature passed the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century. This act required schools to form site councils that would work to develop Certificates of Initial Mastery (CIM) and Certificates of Advanced Mastery (CAM) for students who met new standards for performance. Over the course of the next year, task forces consisting of educators and citizens were formed and charged with making recommendations to the State Board of Education for implementation of the Educational Act for the 21st Century. In 1995, the Oregon legislature strengthened and clarified this act through amendments. These required all students to demonstrate proficiency in six core subject areas: English, mathematics, science, the social sciences (history, civics, geography, and economics), the arts, and a second language. Each subject discipline would be phased in with a target date of the 2001–2002 school year, when all 10th-grade students would be assessed in each of the six subject areas. Proficiency in each of these subjects would lead to achievement of the CIM in grade 10. As 12th graders, students would be expected to have combined elective advanced-level academic study with career-related learning experiences in order to achieve the CAM (Oregon Department of Education, 1999a). Seat-time and opportunity mandates . In terms of opportunity mandates, the Educational Act for the 21st Century requires all schools districts to make available the study of second languages to meet the education goals. “Second language instruction and proficiency. (1) In the 21st century, all Oregonians should be able to communicate in a second language. School districts shall make available to all students the opportunity to achieve this goal” (Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century, 1997, Section 329.487). This act defines “able to communicate” by requiring two years of study by 12th grade but leaves its implementation and assessment of proficiency to the discretion of the individual school districts. (2) Prior to the end of the 2001–2002 school year, all students who have completed grade 12 shall have completed a minimum of two years of second language instruction and shall demonstrate a level of proficiency in a second language as determined by the school district board. (3) Each school district board shall determine the method of implementation of the second language requirement under subsection (2) of this section (Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century, 1997, Section 329.487, Points 2 and 3). This minimal requirement reflects the two-year historical trend. It allows school districts the option of implementing foreign language instruction as early or as late in the K–12 instructional sequence as they choose, however.

< previous page

page_110

next page >

< previous page

page_111

next page >

Page 111 This two-year seat-time and proficiency mandate has also been expanded to include the study of ASL in its definition of “second languages” (Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century, 1997, Section 429.007, Point 11). The flexibility in sequence for implementation of seat-time mandates specified in state law also applies to performance-based assessment practices. School districts are required to develop a series of assessments in the benchmark grades of three, five, eight, and 10 for the CIM. Performance-based testing in a second language can come at any point in this sequence, providing that it meets the twoyear seat-time requirement and the performance standards developed by the school district: The Certificate of Initial Mastery shall be based on a series of performance-based assessments and content assessments benchmarked to mastery levels at approximately grades 3, 5, 8 and 10. The assessment methods shall include work samples and tests and may include portfolios … Students shall be allowed to collect credentials over a period of years, culminating in a project or exhibition that demonstrates attainment of the required knowledge and skills that have been measured by a variety of valid assessment methods. (3) Requirements for the Certificate of Initial Mastery shall: (a) Ensure that students have the necessary knowledge and demonstrate the skills to read, write, problem solve, reason and communicate; (b) Ensure that students have the opportunity to demonstrate the ability to learn, think, retrieve information and use technology; (c) Ensure that students have the opportunity to demonstrate that they can work effectively as individuals and as an individual in group settings; and (d) Ensure that student assessment is based on academic content standards in mathematics, science, history, geography, economics, civics, English, second languages and the arts (emphasis added by author) (Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century, 1997, Section 329.465, Points 2 and 3). Advanced-level study and higher education. Standards-based reform is unique in the state of Oregon because it has explicitly encompassed student transition into higher education. The Oregon University System (OUS) has adopted new admission requirements beginning in the 2001–2002 school year that are articulated with K—12 education reform. The Proficiency-Based Admission Standards System (PASS) was developed as a performance-based admissions system aligned with state standards for the CIM and CAM. To gain admission into the OUS, students will be required to demonstrate that their knowledge and skills meet or exceed standards for admission. Beginning in the 2001–2002 school year, students from Oregon public high schools have the option of demonstrating proficiency in English and mathematics to be admitted to the OUS. Proficiency options in science will begin in 2002–2003, the arts in 2003, second languages in 2004, and social science in 2005. Beginning with the fall term 2005, PASS will become the required means for admission of students from Oregon public high schools into the OUS. Students will be expected to meet proficiency requirements in all six subject areas (Oregon Department of Education, 1999b).

< previous page

page_111

next page >

< previous page

page_112

next page >

Page 112 The PASS assessments under development for second languages include similarities and differences between the national standards (Oregon Department of Education, 1999c). Performance is demonstrated within three modes: oral proficiency, reading, and writing. These skill areas are encompassed by the broader interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational modes of the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning. The PASS assessments include six benchmark levels that are aligned with the CIM for grade 10 and the CAM for grade 12, rather than the three benchmark grades of four, eight, and 12 of the national standards. Whereas the national standards are intended to facilitate the identification of content through benchmarks and performance indicators as a curriculum framework, the PASS assessments identify specific lexicon, functions, length of text, and accuracy expected to meet each benchmark. The PASS benchmarks in second languages are intended to be statements of minimum expectations designed to reflect student performance in a face-to-face interview, a testing situation, and classroombased coursework outcomes. School districts are encouraged to develop their own curricula and assessments for the CIM and CAM. By targeting these benchmarks, however, school districts will facilitate students’ successful transition into higher education. Students taking the PASS will receive a score on a proficiency scale from one to five. A score of three meets entrance requirements. Students receiving scores higher than three might receive college credit. The assessment plan will allow students who do not meet PASS standards to retake tests or resubmit work and to enroll through other options on a case-by-case basis (Oregon State Department of Education, 1999c). The inclusion of higher education in the process of defining content and performance standards is consistent with the K–16 focus adopted by the majority of foreign languages represented in the national standards document. In the case of Oregon, this process directly reflects the historical role that preparation higher education has played in pre-college foreign language education. Advanced-level foreign language study. In the Oregon system, longer learning sequences and the attainment of higher foreign language competence will be a factor of students’ career and educational plans after high school. The CAM targets high school students who plan on post-secondary education and professional technical careers (Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century, 1997, Section 329.475). Development of the CAM is currently being planned by the Oregon State Department of Education (B. Costi, personal communication, May 2, 2000). Advanced-level foreign language study is incorporated into the CAM only for those students whose career goals demand more advanced proficiency and for college entrance. The CAM can be attained without an advanced-level study of foreign language, however. The Oregon system also does not mandate a K–12 sequence. According to Betsy Costi, specialist in education and second language education for

< previous page

page_112

next page >

< previous page

page_113

next page >

Page 113 the Oregon State Department of Education, Oregon law allows school districts the freedom of implementing two years or more of foreign language instruction at any point in the grade 1–12 sequence (personal communication, May 2, 2000). Conversely, school districts are not required to begin foreign language instruction at the elementary school level. School districts will incorporate foreign language into the CIM assessments with a target proficiency level of novice or intermediate-low on the ACTFL oral proficiency scale (B. Costi, personal communication, May 2, 2000). This focus on proficiency, rather than course requirements, will allow students to individualize their academic programs to best facilitate their passage of the CIM and to pursue advanced-level study, if appropriate, for the CAM. Standards-based reform in Oregon has formally recognized college entrance and integrated this mission as a framework for advanced-level study. New Jersey: Tentative Framework for K–12 Foreign Language Education Overview. The state of New Jersey began exploring the development of educational goals and standards in 1990. By 1992, panels of representatives from education, business, and the citizenry had been formed with direction from the Department of Education. These panels developed preliminary draft standards in seven content areas and in career education. In 1995, similar panels worked to revise these standards after review and discussion with the public. Their work resulted in 85 standards across all content areas. The Department of Education reviewed this work in 1996 and issued five cross-content workplace readiness standards and 56 standards for seven content areas as part of the Core Content Standards initiative for grades K–12 (New Jersey Department of Education, 1996a). The “core curriculum” content standards apply to the following areas: Visual and performing arts Comprehensive health and physical education Language arts/literacy Mathematics Science Social studies World languages (New Jersey Department of Education, 1996b) Two of these standards, 7.1 and 7.2, are identified as targeting foreign language: Standard 7.1: All students will be able to communicate at a basic literacy level in at least one language other than English.

< previous page

page_113

next page >

< previous page

page_114

next page >

Page 114 Standard 7.2: All students will be able to demonstrate an understanding of the interrelationship between language and culture for at least one world language in addition to English (New Jersey Department of Education, 1996a). K–12 assessments and mandates . The current state assessment plan calls for the inclusion of foreign language in all K–12 core content assessments. Because these assessments do not specify course requirements but rather proficiency requirements, they will function as a flexible mandate to school districts for the implementation of policy affecting seat-time and opportunity mandates. The Department of Education has developed three tests to measure students’ progress in these standards at the benchmark grades four, eight, and 12 termed the Elementary School Proficiency Assessment (ESPA), the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA), and the High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA). The ESPA and GEPA will be used to identify students with special academic needs and as part of an accountability system for schools and school districts. The HSPA will be administered in grade 11 or 12 as a requirement for high school graduation. The current goal for implementation of these assessments in all core content areas, according to proposed New Jersey code, is the 2003–2004 school year for the ESPA and GEPA and the 2005–2006 school year for the HSPA (New Jersey Department of Education, 1999b, Section 6A: 6.4-1, Points b and c). As of the 1999–2000 school year, the ESPA and GEPA are administered in language arts literacy (reading and writing), math, and science (New Jersey Department of Education, 2000b and 2000c). A social studies component for the ESPA and GEPA was field tested for the second consecutive year in 1999–2000. A specific date has not been set for introduction of a foreign language component into the three proficiency assessments according to the New Jersey State Education Department Office of Assessment (J. Voehl, personal communication, April 28, 2000). High school graduation requirements . Although there is not an immediate date set for the implementation of foreign language into the K–12 state assessments, a graduation requirement of two years was established for the 2001–2002 school year. Students entering high school are required to complete 110 credits, which must include the following minimum credits by content area: 20 credits in language arts literacy 15 credits in mathematics 15 credits in science 15 credits in social studies 15 credits in health and physical education 10 credits in visual and performing arts 10 credits in world languages

< previous page

page_114

next page >

< previous page

page_115

next page >

Page 115 Cross-content workplace readiness (which can be satisfied through infusion into existing courses, course equivalents, or career education courses) (New Jersey Department of Education, 1999b, Section 6A: 6.5-1, Point a.1.i) Under this credit system, five credits are equivalent to one Carnegie unit. The 10-credit world languages requirement is equivalent to two years of instruction in a foreign language. New Jersey Commissioner of Education David Hespe has proposed the use of Carnegie units in place of credits and measures that would allow school districts the flexibility to create multidisciplinary curricula, activities, and programs targeting the standards and these requirements (New Jersey Department of Education, 2000a). In the immediate future, foreign language will continue to be mandated through a two-year high school graduation requirement reflecting the historical beginning-level trend. K–12 curriculum frameworks . The New Jersey Department of Education has published a K–12 curriculum framework that includes sections targeting the two world languages standards (New Jersey Department of Education, 1999a). This framework outlines progress indicators for each standard for grades four, eight, and 12. The communication standard (standard 7.1) is characterized by three modes of communication. It incorporates the interpersonal, presentational, and interpretive modes of the ACTFL Performance Guidelines. The culture standard (standard 7.2) incorporates the products, practices, and perspectives orientation as defined in the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning. This framework represents progress towards K–12 foreign language instruction that moves beyond the high school seat-time mandate. The reform plan calls for this K-12 curriculum framework to facilitate instruction and to prepare students for the ESPA, GEPA, and HSPA. Future initiatives will work to promote foreign language instruction linked to the standards, the curriculum framework, and assessment. New Jersey has developed a plan aligned with the sequence consistent with Goals 2000 and the national foreign language standards. The future will reveal whether the state education system is capable of breaking from the historic two-year high school requirement. Springfield, Massachusetts Public Schools: K–10 Sequence for Advanced-Level Study Overview. Standards-based reform initiatives began in the Springfield Public School district in conjunction with national and statewide reform legislation. Progress towards standards-based reform in the state of Massachusetts began with the passage of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act in June 1993 by the state legislature. This act called for the

< previous page

page_115

next page >

< previous page

page_116

next page >

Page 116 establishment of educational goals termed the Common Core of Learning. The state board of education organized the Commission on Common Core Learning, consisting of 40 representatives from the state, to work on the development, review, input, and revision of these standards. The final draft was completed in July 1994. The Massachusetts Common Core of Learning establishes broad educational goals with an emphasis on interdisciplinary learning. This publication is intended to be a guide for curriculum development at the local school level (Massachusetts Department of Education, 1994). The 43 goals outlined in the Common Core of Learning fall under six categories: 1. Read, write, and communicate effectively 2. Use mathematics, the arts, computers, and other technologies effectively 3. Define, analyze, and solve complex problems 4. Acquire, integrate, and apply essential knowledge 5. Study and work effectively 6. Demonstrate personal, social, and civic responsibility (Massachusetts Department of Education, 1994) Two standards specifically target foreign language. Under the first category, “read, write, and communicate effectively”, the following standard is listed: “Read, write, and converse in at least one language in addition to English” (Massachusetts Department of Education, 1994). Under the category “acquire, integrate and apply essential knowledge” the second standard is listed: “Know and understand the development and structure of English and other languages and how learning another language fosters appreciation of peoples and cultures” (Massachusetts Department of Education, 1994). As part of comprehensive standards-based reform, the Common Core of Learning was the first of three planned initiatives. The second was the development of curriculum guides in seven subject areas (the arts, English, foreign languages, health, history and social studies, mathematics, and science and technology). The curriculum framework developed for foreign languages is structurally similar to the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning. It includes the five Cs of the national standards within a pre-K–12 framework. It is intended as a guide for local schools working to meet the state standards (Massachusetts Department of Education, 1999a). The third initiative is the ongoing development of a statewide assessment system termed the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) (Massachusetts Department of Education, 1999b). As of the 1999–2000 school year, MCAS tests are administered to students in grades four, eight, and 10 in English language arts, mathematics, and science and technology. Students in grades eight and 10 are also tested in history and

< previous page

page_116

next page >

< previous page

page_117

next page >

Page 117 social science. As in New Jersey, there are plans for the introduction of foreign language into future MCAS assessments. A definitive implementation date has not been established, however. Massachusetts state law does not include foreign language in references to opportunities to learn. Without designation by grade level, all schools are required to offer “Instruction in orthography, reading, writing, the English language and grammar, geography, arithmetic, drawing, music, the history and constitution of the United States, the duties of citizenship, health education, physical education and good behavior …” (Massachusetts General Law, 2000, Chapter 71: Public Schools, Section 1). Students are required to complete courses in health, American history, and civics (Massachusetts General Law, 2000, Chapter 71: Public Schools, Section 2). Although state law does not mandate opportunities-to-learn or seat-time in foreign language, it does acknowledge ASL as an independent language contributing towards the curriculum (Massachusetts General Law, 2000, Chapter 71: Public Schools, Section 2B). Springfield public schools precede state goals. The Springfield School District serves as an example of the lengthening of foreign language learning by targeting grades K–8. The district began to implement a K–12 articulated foreign language program for all students in 1995 as part of the general curriculum for all students in grades one, two, and seven. The program expanded to grades one to three and seven to nine in 1996. As of the 1999–2000 school year, all students in grades K–10 are required to study one foreign language. This unique arrangement consists of a K–10 seat-time mandate and a K–12 opportunity mandate. Foreign language study is optional in grades 11 and 12 (K. Riordan, personal communication, April 28, 2000). As part of local curriculum reform, a district Foreign Language Curriculum Committee was formed in the summer of 1995. It consisted of foreign language specialists and general and special education teachers. This committee worked to develop a content-based curriculum and learning outcomes that targeted themes and concepts introduced in established subjects at each grade level. This effort coincided with work by school principals to secure time for foreign language instruction in the elementary and middle school day. At the elementary school level, foreign language instruction for all students takes place in 30-minute classes three times a week. Elementary schools choose the languages they would offer for instruction. The majority of schools offer Spanish, reflecting the historic trend towards the study of this language. Other languages include Chinese, French, and Russian. Students have the opportunity to study an additional language at the high school level. The school district plans on articulating the foreign language program with the MCAS for grades four, eight, and 10 as these assessments are implemented. In the case of Springfield Public Schools, K–12 foreign language

< previous page

page_117

next page >

< previous page

page_118

next page >

Page 118 education has preceded the full implementation of state education policy. This school district has moved beyond historical trends by shifting mandatory foreign language study into the elementary and middle/junior high school grades. This situation serves as a formative educational experience leading to elective advanced-level study in the final two years in high school. Chicago Public Schools: Independent Early Language-Learning Initiatives and High School Standards Overview. The Chicago Public Schools (CPS) serve as an example of a school district that has implemented foreign language study despite the exclusion of this subject in statewide assessments and graduation requirements. It has exceeded state educational requirements through its inclusion of foreign language in the development of standards, assessments, and high school graduation requirements. Development of educational standards in the state of Illinois began in 1995 with the establishment of the Illinois Standards Project. This project, overseen by the State Board of Education, organized writing teams in seven subject areas to produce drafts of standards for commentary and discussion. In August 1996, the Illinois legislature passed Illinois Public Law 88-686 (incorporated as Chapter 105, Article 23.63 in The School Code of Illinois). This law requires each school district to set student learning objectives that meet or exceed educational goals established by the state. By 1997, standards in seven subjects areas were completed: English language arts, mathematics, science, social science, physical development and health, fine arts, and foreign languages (Illinois State Board of Education, 2000). The Illinois standards framework consists of 30 goals and 98 standards that target the seven subject areas. This single standards document includes three state education goals for foreign language: State Goal 28: Use the target language to communicate within and beyond the classroom setting. State Goal 29: Use the target language to develop and understanding of the customs, arts, literature, history and geography associated with the target language. State Goal 30: Use the target language to make connections and reinforce knowledge and skills across academic, vocational and technical disciplines. (Illinois State Board of Education, 1997a) Learning standards and performance indicators were developed for each state education goal. In foreign language, the performance indicators are organized within five chronological stages of language development: beginning, beginning intermediate, intermediate, advanced intermediate, and advanced. Under State Goal 28 “Communication,” for example, 47 progress

< previous page

page_118

next page >

< previous page

page_119

next page >

Page 119 indicators are organized under a rubric of four communication standards and the five language developmental levels. In terms of opportunities-to-learn, the foreign language standards are considered advisory only and are intended as a resource for students, teachers, and schools that participate in foreign language teaching and learning. There are no current plans to include foreign language in statewide standards-based assessments (Illinois State Board of Education, 1997b). The development of state assessments in other content areas began in 1997 with passage of Public Act 90-566 by the Illinois legislature. This act called for all students in grades three, five, eight, and 10 to take the Illinois Standards Achievement Tests (ISAT) in reading, mathematics, and writing. Students in grades four and seven must take ISATs in science (which includes items in physical development and health) and social science (which includes items in fine arts) (Illinois State Board of Education, 2000). Students in grade 11 must take the Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE), which assesses content in reading, writing, mathematics, and science or social science. During the 1999–2000 school year, ISATs in reading, mathematics, and writing were piloted. During the 2000–2001 school year, additional ISATs in science and social science and the PSAE were administered (Illinois State Board of Education, 2000). Public high school graduation requirements reflect the absence of foreign language in standards-based assessments. To receive a high school diploma, students must complete coursework in the following content areas: Language arts (three credits) Mathematics (two credits, one of which can be related to computer technology) Science (one credit) Social studies (two credits, of which at least one year must be history of the United States or a combination of history of the United States and American government) Music, art, foreign language, or vocational education (one credit from any of these three subjects, including American Sign Language) (Illinois State Code, Chapter 105/5, Section 27-22, 1998) Chicago public schools take independent initiatives. Initiatives taken by the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) have focused on increased opportunities to learn at the K–8 level coupled with the traditional two-year high school foreign language requirement. In response to the passage of Public Law 88-686, the CPS began work to develop Chicago Academic Standards and Curriculum Framework Statements. The standards were developed in collaboration with the Chicago Teachers Union, local teachers and administrators, and national leaders in standards-based education. Four academic areas were targeted with a K–12 focus: language arts, mathematics, science, and social science. Teams of teachers worked to align the Curriculum Framework Statements with the goals of the standards for the benchmark grades of three,

< previous page

page_119

next page >

< previous page

page_120

next page >

Page 120 six, eight, and 10 (CPS, 1998). The initiative to supplement state law by the inclusion of foreign language in standards and assessments began when the Chicago Board of Education moved in 1996 to raise high school graduation requirements for all students. Beginning with the ninth-grade class of Fall 1997, minimum high school graduation requirements included two years of foreign language study. A summary of these requirements is as follows: English (English I, II, III, and IV ) Mathematics (algebra, geometry, and advanced algebra/trigonometry) Laboratory science (biology, Earth and space or environmental science, and chemistry or physics) Social science (world studies, U.S. history, and one elective) World language (two credits) Fine arts (two credits in art or drafting and music) Physical education or ROTC (two credits) Career education or ROTC (two credits) Electives (three credits) Student advisory (three credits) (CPS, 1999b) Assessment in the CPS closely follows the state testing schedule for the ISATs and PSAT. In addition to these tests, Chicago Academic Standards Exams (CASE) developed by the school district are administered in 12 of the required high school courses (freshman English, sophomore English, algebra, geometry, world studies, U.S. history, biology, chemistry, physics, Earth and space science, and environmental science). During the 1999–2000 piloting of these achievement exams, individual schools decided the extent to which CASE exams would count towards students’ grades in these courses. The CPS plan calls for the exams to eventually account for 25 percent of a student’s grade in each course and to serve as midterm and final exams. Students passing all of the CPS and state exams in 10th grade receive a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CPS, 1999d). The CPS World Language Program offers instruction in 12 languages: American Sign Language, Arabic, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Polish, Russian, Spanish, and Urdu. First-year standards developed for these languages are organized within the five Cs framework of the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning. The CPS foreign language standards document specifies how each of the 12 national standards meets the three Illinois state learning goals and their 11 associated standards for foreign language (CPS, 1999c, p. 123). First-year performance indicators have been created for romance languages, Chinese, German, Japanese, Russian, classical languages, and heritage language learners (language learners with a familial linguistic heritage).

< previous page

page_120

next page >

< previous page

page_121

next page >

Page 121 The piloting of first-year high school world language goals and standards began in the 1999–2000 school year (CPS, 1999c). A world language component is planned for the 2001–2002 CASE exams. This component will initially include French, German, and Spanish. The development of exams for all foreign languages offered in the CPS will follow. This work will continue with the development of second-year standards and eventually a one or two CASE exam sequence that all high school students must pass in conjunction with the two-year foreign language graduation requirement. K–8 programs and advanced-level study. Additional initiatives are at work in CPS to push language learning beyond the historic two-year trend. According to Marco Garcia, teacher facilitator of the Office of Language and Cultural Education, the CPS is actively working to provide opportunities for K–8 foreign language education to facilitate student progress towards meeting and exceeding performance standards (personal communication, April, 20, 2000). A variety of language learning opportunities exist in different school formats. As of the 1999–2000 school year, as many as 60 K–8 foreign language programs exist in world language magnet cluster schools, specialty schools, academies, dual-language schools, and general elementary schools. These programs feature cross-disciplinary language and culture instruction and intensive cultural and vocational links to language learning (M. Garcia, personal communication, April 28, 2000). All high schools in the CPS offer the opportunity to study four years of a foreign language as a continuation of this early language study (CPS 1999a). Opportunities to learn. In terms of opportunities to learn, the goal of the CPS is to provide a lengthened sequence leading towards the two-year high school requirement that is as articulated as possible. Such a sequence will depend upon the availability of resources (the hiring of qualified teachers, funding, and logistics). In the case of each K–8 school, instruction can take place for as few as two years to as many as six depending upon resources. The intent is to provide language instruction over consecutive years without a break in this sequence, leading into ninth grade in high school. A world language placement composite form will facilitate the transition of these students into high school foreign language courses. It is to be completed by eighth grade foreign language instructors as a placement guide for students in high school. It is intended to encourage the placement of students into the second or third year of high school foreign language instruction. Students who enter high school with proficiency acquired through elementary and middle/junior high school study will still be required to complete the two-year requirement at these higher levels of study (M. Garcia, personal communication, April 20, 2000). They will receive back credit of one year if they complete the two-year high school requirement through upper-level courses. Through this process, lengthened learning sequences will be a function of K–8 foreign language instruction, placement into the mandatory two-year high school require-

< previous page

page_121

next page >

< previous page

page_122

next page >

Page 122 ment (potentially at the advanced level), and elective study beyond this requirement. STANDARDS-BASED REFORM: FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY IMPLICATIONS The inclusion of foreign language in standards-based reform in each of the reviewed states and school districts provides examples of how increased opportunities to learn and lengthened learning sequences can be achieved despite the persistence of historical trends. The historical perspective on contemporary education reform provides insights into policy implications for general education. This history has demonstrated a reactionary, rather than proactive, response from the foreign language profession for much of the past century. Rather than actively working to shape the place and purpose of foreign language in the curriculum, the profession has tended towards “flight to the sidelines” (Lange, 1990, p. 83)—a tendency to observe, comment, and review rather than participating in reform of the curriculum. This situation has not been the case with standards-based reform. The lobbying efforts and development of a national standards document helped to shape federal legislation, the inclusion of foreign language in this reform, and served as a guide to state and local initiatives. The foreign language profession has avoided many of the problems incurred by other subject disciplines that have delayed or damaged the ability to develop standards. Why should there be professional concern for the teaching of foreign language for general education? From an educational policy perspective, the answer to this question is that current national education reform, on a federal level in Goals 2000 and on a professional level in the Standards for Foreign Language Learning , calls for the inclusion of all students in the education of foreign language. A more practical perspective, however, is the fact that if there is no concern for the foreign language in general education, then policy decisions will be made by others in education who do not always have professional interests in mind. Examples from history include the Harvard Report of 1945, circulated among institutions of higher education and public school superintendents, which recommended removing foreign language from the secondary school curriculum, reserving its study for gifted students and replacing it with courses in foreign literature in translation (Childers, 1964, p. 39). Additionally, Charles A. Prosser, a key figure in the life adjustment education reform movement of the 1940s, and James B. Conant, author of the best-selling American High School Today in 1959, favored general studies courses in foreign language taught in English and a separate foreign language sequence for gifted and talented students. Such general studies courses actually grew in number during these decades.

< previous page

page_122

next page >

< previous page

page_123

next page >

Page 123 On a personal level, my own experiences working as a supervisor of field-based foreign language student teachers have allowed me to be privy to policy making at the school level. There are schools in a number of states that have created, at the urging of principals and counselors, a two-year terminal slow track in Spanish that “covers” the same material using the same text-books in two years normally introduced in one year of regular Spanish. Students completing this sequence receive credit indistinguishable on their transcripts from regular Spanish but do not have the opportunity to take more courses after two years unless they re-enroll in the regular second-year course. There are high school guidance counselors who have implemented policies allowing only students with a B or higher in junior high English to enroll in foreign language as high school freshmen. There are other examples, each reflecting the idea that foreign language study is not for all students, a limited beginning-level emphasis, and a lack of understanding as to how and in what form foreign language study should serve the education of all students. Following are implications that incorporate history and current educational practice for the continued policy development in foreign language education. The “Two-Year Compromise” for Higher Education A fundamental obstacle to longer learning sequences and increased learning opportunities is the inescapable college-preparatory function that foreign language has served in formal institutions of education from past to present. The fact that foreign language remains primarily a subject in the domain of secondary education reinforces its place and purpose in the secondary school curriculum as preparation for higher education. The lack of opportunities to study foreign language in grades K–8 reflects its absence in the general education deemed fundamental for all students regardless of postsecondary pursuits. The curricular foundations of literacy, math, and science can be traced across all forms of formal elementary and secondary institutions. Foreign language in these institutions, however, began fundamentally as a secondary school subject with a predominantly college-preparatory mission in the Latin grammar school and academy. Fluctuations in the interest and study of languages follow the patterns of education reform, generally rising with academic course taking and increased college entrance and lowering during periods of curriculum expansion and differentiation. By even the most liberal counts, no more than one-third of public high school students have been enrolled in advanced-level courses in the past century. This statistic occurs despite ever-increasing post-secondary enrollments in the nation’s colleges and universities and growth in advanced-level academic course taking in other subject

< previous page

page_123

next page >

< previous page

page_124

next page >

Page 124 disciplines. This beginning-level trend is made even more acute by the fact that the public high school enrolls the vast majority of all K–12 foreign language enrollments. Most Americans do not enter high school with fundamental preparation in the learning of a second language. Whereas record numbers of high school students now study a foreign language, a two-year compromise persists in education. The study of language will grow, but this growth will primarily occur in the limited capacity of beginning-level study. The most recent periods of education reform exemplify the two-year compromise. From 1981 to 1996, the percentage of high school graduates enrolling in four-year colleges and universities increased from 33.5 percent to 41.9 percent (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). During this period, a greater proportion of these institutions required foreign language for entrance, increasing from 14.1 percent to 20.7 percent between 1982 and 1994 (Brod and Huber, 1996, p. 41). Yet, the accompanying growth in high school foreign language was predominantly a beginning-level phenomenon. Enrollment rates at this level were four times those at the advanced level (see Appendices K and L for comparison years 1985 and 2000). Education reform initiatives in the states and school districts reviewed reflected the two-year compromise. Multiple levels of diplomas, electives, and mandates hold in common a two-year learning sequence in secondary education—just enough to serve the majority of higher education requirements with options for longer sequences of study for those students who have the broadest of post-secondary ambitions. This limited sequence length can be addressed in educational practice through the alternative policy approaches exemplified in the reviewed states and school districts. Performance-Based Assessment and Programmatic Length A positive result of the coupling of seat-time mandates with performance-based assessments in states and school districts has been the various ways increased length of study serves student performance. High school graduation requirements (seat-time mandates) can only provide for formal course sequences. Newly developed statewide and school district assessments, however, will determine at what performance level students have acquired the ability to use the language. As Betsy Costi, education specialist in second languages for the Oregon State Department of Education, explained, once performance replaced seat-time as the criteria for receiving a certificate of mastery, students began to repeat levels or complete more foreign language in order to pass the required proficiency-based assessment (personal communication, May 2, 2000). In the Chicago Public Schools, as in Oregon, a longer language-learning sequence has been supported, in part, for the benefits that it provides in helping greater numbers of students acquire passing proficiency in the foreign language.

< previous page

page_124

next page >

< previous page

page_125

next page >

Page 125 These examples suggest that education policy should work to provide realistic performance goals for all students based on the needs and realities of state and school district education systems. Such initiatives have pared back the K–16 sequence outlined in the national foreign language standards and the ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K–12 Learners (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages [ACTFL], 1998). In the process, they have set performance levels for all students and have created a rationale for a longer learning sequence beginning in grades K–8. Most recently, ACTFL has recognized this need. Supplemental handouts to the ACTFL Performance Guidelines, describing generic performance goals based on various language learning sequences common in school districts, were distributed at the 1999 ACTFL national conference. From a historical perspective, reform has not resulted in major changes in length of study. At the secondary school level, students have continued to complete predominantly two-year sequences. Even when recent enrollment increases at the middle/junior high school level are considered by level, the predominance of exploratory programs and the beginning-level focus of courses in these schools result in even greater enrollment numbers at the beginning level. Reform that targets performance over seat time offers the opportunity for agreement among constituencies in education (teachers, administrators, parents, school boards, communities, and businesses) as to what students should be able to do in a foreign language, not simply how much they should take. Foreign language education policy that supports the development of performance goals establishes the necessity for longer opportunities and learning sequences leading to the achievement of these goals. Enrolling All Students through K–8 Education The historical perspective and recent reform initiatives offer a convincing argument for the general study of foreign languages to be primarily in the domain of grades K–8 with less dependence on secondary education for the introduction of languages to American citizens. The public high school is an inappropriate education setting for several reasons. First, its comprehensive basis has historically been a differentiated curriculum capable of enrolling all students for different purposes (O’Neil, 2000, p.8). Rather than offer a single curriculum, high schools offer various tracks and electives with the goal of matching studies with needs beyond high school. Foreign language arguably does not meet each of these needs. Second, although consistency exists to a degree in high school graduation requirements across the country, they often do not include foreign language study. Standards-based initiatives in states and school districts might include foreign language; however, study beyond two years generally targets the college-bound. The potential sequence is limited and has remained this way for the past century. Finally, the mere fact that there is an abundance of choices in electives within acad-

< previous page

page_125

next page >

< previous page

page_126

next page >

Page 126 emic, general studies, and vocational tracks in the public high school means that there is simply not enough time for the study of all subjects and courses. This situation is true even for those courses required for graduation. In eight of the 18 states that have seat-time mandates, foreign language is one of several subjects from a grouping that students can select to fulfill graduation requirements (see Appendix H). The curriculum theorist Elliot Eisner suggests that choices that students make in their studies are weighed against their “maximum payoff within the educational system” (1985, p. 7). How does the study of a foreign language pay off for students for their future or meet their present intellectual interests? Should they study more foreign language at the expense of language arts, science, math, or fine arts? It is most ironic that at the very level where most Americans experience the learning of a foreign language, there exists the most pressure to study limited amounts (if it is studied at all). One suggested solution is for secondary school foreign language programs to explore content-based instruction as a way of efficiently combining content areas. As of 1997, only 2 percent of public high schools taught other content areas in a language other than English, often in a bilingual or immersion setting (Rhodes and Branaman, 1999, p. 24). Content-based instruction as an answer is not without its problems. A major obstacle to this approach is that it does not directly address the historical precedence of foreign language in a limited two-year sequence and its traditional purpose for college entrance. Time in the curriculum might be freed by content-based or interdisciplinary instruction, but there is no evidence to suggest that this process would lead toward increased study and longer sequences. In fact, the state and school district initiatives reviewed in this chapter suggest that new curricular initiatives specific to the secondary level will reflect historical trends in length of study and opportunities to learn. Foreign language education in the elementary and middle/junior high school grades is compelling from a policy standpoint for several reasons. Although tracking does take place in grades K–8, this procedure is typically done for remedial purposes within the framework of a common curriculum. The curriculum is more aligned with the goal of a general education for all students. The limited number of electives at these grade levels is also an advantage. Fewer electives mean fewer opportunities to exclude subjects from the education of all students. Finally, the many K–8 foreign language programs already in existence, both exploratory and formally sequential, have contributed towards a professional understanding of how foreign language can be part of a general education mission in a variety of approaches. As an example, the Chicago Public Schools have implemented policy that encourages foreign language as part of the regular studies in elementary and middle/junior high schools in various programmatic forms. A two-year high school requirement and mandatory assessment (currently under development) has created the need for earlier foreign language study similar to that

< previous page

page_126

next page >

< previous page

page_127

next page >

Page 127 in other subjects, such as math and science. These increased opportunities to learn provide numerous benefits as students enter high school: a base knowledge of a specific foreign language and experience in language learning; increased opportunities for placement into more advanced high school language courses; improved chances for all students to pass high school performance standards. Initiatives in other states and school districts have taken similar approaches to incorporating foreign language into general K–8 studies for all students prior to entrance into high school. Opportunities to Learn in General Education There is presently no definitive mission addressing the needs of all students for the study of foreign language. The clearest indication of a curricular place and purpose continues to be differentiation focused on college entrance in function of AP courses. These courses serve the fewest students in language classrooms. The development of foreign language AP courses, a legacy of Conant and the National Defense Education Act of 1958, prepared 4.1 percent of all students enrolled in French, Latin, German, and Spanish for placement tests in higher education in 1998 (see Table 6-4 in this book). Recent studies of national high school transcript and longitudinal data (Watzke, 2000b) provide in-depth support for this trend of students’ transitions to higher education. These studies suggest that only 35 percent of the secondary school population who eventually enroll in four-year colleges and universities continue the study of a foreign language in college. The largest proportion of these students are those who have completed between two and three years (2.71 years) of foreign language in high school. In contrast, those students who declare a major in foreign language complete nearly four years (3.92 years) of foreign language in high school but represent fewer than 1 percent (0.7 percent) of college entrants. In an educational environment traditionally oriented toward foreign language for college preparation, teachers might approach the predominant beginning level with conflicting purposes: • A weeding out mechanism for students who are unable to continue or who are uninterested in a foreign language sequence that is increasingly oriented towards college entrance • A general studies course that serves as an introduction to cultural and language elements without providing those students with a more intense interest in advanced knowledge of a language and culture the necessary foundation for progress towards advanced language competence With increasingly more high school graduates enrolling in higher education, the college preparatory mission of secondary education will continue to persist in the curriculum. These students will continue to enroll in increasing numbers into beginning-level courses at a rate several times that at the advanced level. This situation presents a challenge to foreign language edu-

< previous page

page_127

next page >

< previous page

page_128

next page >

Page 128 cation policy because it is unclear how the beginning level can serve both a mission of general education for all students and college preparation. The approaches to foreign language education in the reviewed state and school district standards-based reform initiatives favor general education goals for all students typically up to 10th grade. As students elect advanced-level study of a foreign language, it is differentiated towards college entrance, advanced placement, and certain vocations (unspecified but mentioned in Oregon law). As the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning are reinterpreted and adopted by states and local school districts, the five key domains of language development (the Five Cs—communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities) will serve as a foundation for their scope to extend from kindergarten to college. Although “college” is clearly excluded as one of the five Cs, it currently remains entrenched in approaches to reform. The collaborative nature of the development of these national standards among various constituencies increases the likelihood of a common mission for foreign language in general education. Foreign language education policy targeting all students and the limited learning sequences in which they study will not serve general education by merely taking a slice from the K–16 sequence proposed in the national standards and planning instruction based upon the skills identified in these standards. More fundamental questions must be answered: What are the skills that all students should attain upon completion of a learning sequence potentially initiated in grades K–8 and completed by grade 10? How do these skills serve general education? How do they prepare all students for life after high school? Do these skills provide a base for those students continuing their studies of foreign language? These questions have been answered in different ways during the history of foreign language education without lasting results. In 1929, Coleman proposed that a limited number of years devoted to foreign language study should focus on the development of reading skills and passive recognition of grammar. Prosser and Conant proposed general studies courses in the 1940s and 1950s that would provide a general introduction to language learning or languages of the world. Ultimately, foreign language education policy must act to clarify the historical problem of general foreign language education for all students within a tradition designed to serve the few continuing on to advanced-level study. Without a clear mission for beginning-level study that serves all students, longer learning sequences will remain a reality for the few. If the historic growth and expansion of foreign language study in schools that has occurred since the 1980s is to be sustained, then the profession must have a unified voice in a general education mission lest others outside the profession follow historical examples and impose answers on the curriculum.

< previous page

page_128

next page >

< previous page

page_129

next page >

Page 129 Opportunities to Learn and the Redefinition of Foreign Language At the beginning of the past century, around the year 1900, changes in the purpose and needs of education to serve society were reflected in the relatively quick replacement of the study of classical languages with modern languages in secondary and higher education. The study of modern languages expanded opportunities for students in professional, vocational, and personal ways. In a similar way, the addition of languages, state education law, and national education reform in recent times have supported the expansion of what it means to study a modern language and increased opportunities to learn languages. The term “world language” is now more frequently used in place of “foreign” or “modern” language. It has been pointed out that a reason for this change is the fact that no language is foreign in the United States. Even the identification of languages with regions of the country, common in textbooks and even in the standards document, does not capture the pervasive nature of multiple languages in nearly every community and even their influence on the English language (Osborne, 2000). This term also reflects an advantage to the study of a second language beyond college preparation or professional and vocational purposes—to participate in local communities, contribute to and benefit from society, and address the realities and responsibilities of citizenship. Just as the rise of modern over classical language study reflected underlying societal change, new languages have increasingly appeared in the curricula of schools in the 1990s that are changing what it means to study a modern language. These changes, while providing more opportunities to study foreign language, will require education policy that brings these new languages into line with the goals of standards-based reform and a redefinition towards the idea of world languages. In the case of ASL and Spanish for Spanish speakers, recognition in education law and reform had been quite recent. The 1990 ACTFL foreign language survey was the first to include enrollments in ASL. In 1990, 18 students were reported as enrolled in ASL (see Appendix C). The 2000 survey involved 17,198 students, surpassing such languages as Chinese and Russian. These enrollments, although small, reflect changes in the laws of states that allow the study of ASL to satisfy foreign language requirements. The New York Standards for Languages Other Than English describes ASL and its relationship to the standards: The primary goal of American Sign Language (ASL) learning is to allow students to communicate with deaf people in the context of Deaf culture. American Sign Language is a visual-gestural language. It is devoid of voice and does not have a written form. It is governed by its own norms (morphology, syntax, and discourse structure). It is also governed by sign production, registers, and non-manual grammar (facial grammatical signals [eyebrows, eye gaze, lower face and body postures]). When students learn this language, the greatest emphasis is on communication so that they will be able to use ASL as a tool to perform specific commu-

< previous page

page_129

next page >

< previous page

page_130

next page >

Page 130 nicative functions. This ability is applied in situations that can be characterized as receptive, expressive, and interactive. (New York State Department of Education, 1995, p. 20) This statement presents the unique aspects of ASL as a relatively new language in the curriculum. First, ASL expands our understanding of culture to include groups within a specific home or national culture: the hearing-impaired culture. Second, communication takes place primarily within the new medium of visual-gestural. This language is “devoid” of the spoken and written form. Finally, the nature of learning this language is clearly based on communication and functional competence. Enrollment growth in ASL has not been as dramatic as in Spanish courses for Spanish speakers. The 1994 enrollment survey was the first to include enrollments in Spanish for Spanish speakers (see Appendix C). In this year, 17,766 students were enrolled in this language. By 2000, it was the fifthhighest enrolled language with 127,551 students (see Appendix C). The rise in enrollments in Spanish for Spanish speakers represents a national growth in foreign language courses for heritage language learners. The Chicago Public Schools describes programs designed for heritage language learners: A Heritage Language Program is for students who have already acquired a language other than English in the home and community. It exists in schools where the majority of the students already speak the target language and may apply at any grade level, form preschool through high school. Students in Heritage Language Programs build on the proficiency they already possess. The goal is for students to develop advanced academic levels of their language and an understanding of and appreciation for their rich cultural heritage (Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2000). The unique aspects of heritage language programs include students who have already acquired some amount of proficiency in the language, a focus on language development for the purpose of academics, and instruction in students’ native cultures. Like ASL, heritage language learning represents an expansion of opportunities for foreign language learning. The implications of these new definitions of foreign language learning have ramifications for policy. Based upon the unique nature of these languages, the rationale for providing ASL or a heritage language program in the curriculum of a local school district might be very different from that of modern languages. As expanding options, these languages will likely contribute to the growth of foreign language enrollments. Policy must work to ensure that opportunities to learn them are part of a framework leading to longer sequences for increased proficiency in the language. Just as modern languages supplemented classical to provide new curricular opportunities in the early 1900s, ASL and heritage language learning have emerged in the 1990s as a different form and expansion of modern language study.

< previous page

page_130

next page >

< previous page

page_131

next page >

Page 131 CONCLUSION: LASTING CHANGE IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION Standards-based reform in foreign language is part of a broader education reform in the United States. Nationally, the foreign language profession has worked to develop a standards document that reflects the K–12 sequence for all students outlined in the federal legislation Goals 2000. Historically, opportunities to learn and an extended learning sequence have never existed on such a scale envisioned by the standards. In order for educational policy to effect a lasting change in foreign language, it must address historical trends, recognize the limits of education reform, and incorporate the experience and realities of state and school district implementation of policy. This situation will ultimately point towards new approaches and a curricular mission in education, redefining foreign language for the next century. The focus on secondary education in this work is intentional. As the institutions where most Americans study foreign language, secondary education reform and foreign language education policy directly influences the largest percentage of K–12 students engaged in the learning of foreign languages. This situation is unlikely to change in the near future; however, it is just as unlikely that a language learning sequence beyond two years for all students will be achieved at this institutional level. Historical trends and standards-based reform initiatives indicate K–8 foreign language education as the key to longer language sequences for all students. The greater variety of programmatic types in these grades and limited historical data present a challenge to the study and development of policy and educational practice in grades K–8. The focus on secondary education ultimately leads to the need for continued research and study of practices in earlier grade levels. In the final decades of the 20th century, more students were studying a foreign language than at any point in history. The public high school has changed considerably during the past century, from an institution for a few to an institution enrolling most adolescents. Education reform has accompanied these changes and included foreign language to meet the evolving needs of the student population and society. In the coming century, new challenges and new languages will alter the educational landscape and the place and purpose of foreign language in the curriculum. The historical trends that have characterized the past century will work to shape changes in the next. It is the obligation of the foreign language profession to recognize this history as it works to implement policy that serves both foreign language and general education. NOTES 1. While employed as a College Supervisor of foreign language student teachers, I visited one high school that had created “slow” sections of Spanish consisting of a two-year terminal sequence. This course name did not appear on the students’ transcript. However, it was

< previous page

page_131

next page >

< previous page

page_132

next page >

Page 132 understood by the school district that these sections covered half of the normal curriculum in regular sections and that students would not be allowed to place into the third-year course upon their completion. Such courses are not described in the professional literature. 2. See the introduction to appendices for a description of the estimation procedure for 1905 enrollment data by level.

< previous page

page_132

next page >

< previous page

page_133

next page >

Page 133 Introduction to the Appendices The following appendices report a variety of education and population statistics heavily referenced in the text from the late 1800s to the present. This introduction provides an overview of the contents of each appendix and general issues related to their construction. We additionally provide detailed notes with individual appendices. The reader is urged to consult these notes and the primary data sources for further information. APPENDICES A–D Appendices A to D present comprehensive high school and foreign language enrollment data summarizing all available primary sources from 1889 to 2000. Appendix A presents a summary of foreign language enrollment data as traditionally represented—raw enrollment figures and the percentage of the public high school population enrolled in foreign language. The notes for this table contain citations for the 42 surveys of enrollments in public secondary schools conducted from the academic years 1889–1890 to 2000–2001. These surveys served as the primary sources for these first four appendices. Appendix B represents an alternative approach to the presentation of enrollment data. It compares raw enrollment figures with the total public high school and adolescent population to produce percentages. Appendices C and D present summary data for individual languages over the past century, highlighting the four highest-enrolled languages (Appendix C) and all other foreign languages for which data has been collected (Appendix D). As a whole, these tables represent a complete accounting of available primary sources for the investigation of change in enrollment trends. This summary accounts for more than a century

< previous page

page_133

next page >

< previous page

page_134

next page >

Page 134 of reporting and corrects omissions and errors that might be expected from such an extended record. Because this data is cited in the remaining text, it is important to recognize particular discrepancies and limitations. Discrepancies in Historical Enrollment Data In the course of preparing data for Appendices A to D, numerous discrepancies were found between the primary sources and subsequent reporting of these data in secondary sources. Such discrepancies include the following: the omission of enrollments in less commonly-taught languages (such as Japanese, Chinese, and Russian) and Greek (an important early contribution to the study of classical languages); inadvertent changes in enrollment figures for specific languages without explanation during the duplication of prior enrollment data from one year to the next; failure to include updated enrollment figures reported in subsequent primary sources (including follow-up reporting of previous years); the use of erroneous and sparsely cited secondary sources; and the perpetuation of errors and omissions over years of reporting. These errors, omissions, and general discrepancies are detailed in the notes to each appendix. The reader is urged to examine all data in these appendices with reference to these notes and all primary sources cited. Particular attention should be paid to enrollment data for the period 1889 to 1948. Surveys conducted by the Modern Language Association (MLA) and American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) cite a report by Parker (1957) as the source for data from this period. Examination of this report found that it did not provide a citation for the 11 enrollment periods from 1890–1949. These data most probably came from annual U.S. Office of Education reports. The Parker report failed to provide enrollment data in several areas. First, enrollments in only four languages were reported: Latin, French, German, and Spanish. Enrollments in Greek and other languages (depending on the year) must be included in order to calculate the accurate percentage of high school students enrolled in foreign language study in each year. Second, this report only listed enrollment data from 10 of the 23 U.S. Office of Education surveys conducted from the 1889–1890 to 1948–1949 academic years. A complete and comprehensive reporting on enrollments is included in the appendices. Finally, the report did not include data from the comprehensive survey of 1924–1925 conducted by the American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages (ACCML) in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Education. Consequently, the MLA and ACTFL surveys have included incomplete enrollment data for the academic years 1890–1948 in their summary tables. Discrepancies in the data for the period 1958 to 1994 and any corrections are described in the notes to each appropriate appendix.

< previous page

page_134

next page >

< previous page

page_135

next page >

Page 135 Limitations of Historical Enrollment Data With few exceptions (Jenks, 1982), limitations of enrollment data are rarely discussed or presented with tables. The data presented in Appendix A to D represent those students enrolled in any amount or number of foreign language in a given year. They do not account for the study of multiple languages by single students. Therefore, they overestimate the actual percentage enrolled by counting each student once for each foreign language in which they are enrolled. This procedure is consistent across each survey. Although this consistent overestimation facilitates the comparison of one survey’s results to the next, it must be recognized as an issue in any discussion of enrollment trends. All subsequent enrollment percentages and standardized enrollment percentages calculated through data analysis inflate the actual numbers and percentages of each population enrolled in foreign language. The data also come from different survey methodologies. Results are subject to the constraints of the survey method. They do not provide the continuity of a single survey instrument and procedure to compensate for missing data. Examples of methodologies include the following: • Data for 1924 come from a 1924–1925 study conducted by the American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages (ACCML, 1928). These enrollment data were collected by the use of a national survey with the help of the U.S. Bureau of Education. Surveys were sent out to the more than 22,000 public high schools in March of 1925. Three follow-up surveys were sent to non-responding schools with the help of state education leaders. The final national response rate was 70 percent (ACCML, 1928, p. 6). The survey results provide raw enrollment data by foreign language and by level in public high schools. • Data for 1933 come from a study of offerings and enrollments in high school subjects prepared by Carl A. Jessen and Lester B. Herlihy for the Office of Education (Jessen and Herlihy, 1938). This survey reports on enrollments for all public high schools in the United States for which data were available, as reported by state departments of education. • Data for 1948 come from the Biennial Survey of Education in the United States 1949–1950 (Rice et al., 1951). This survey was one in a series of annual, and eventually biennial, reports issued by the U.S. Office of Education. These data represent a summary of educational data collection and reporting by the states and collected by the federal government. • Surveys from 1958 to 1970 were funded by NDEA and conducted by the MLA and ACTFL. Data for 1963 come from a national survey conducted by the MLA during the 1963–1964 academic year. Questionnaires were sent to state supervisors and foreign language consultants of 46 state departments of education. Questionnaires were sent to the principals of each high school for the remaining four states. Data were returned by all 50 states (Eshelman and Dershem, 1965 pp. 1–2). These data are comprised of raw enrollment data by language and level of study.

< previous page

page_135

next page >

< previous page

page_136

next page >

Page 136 • Data for 1978 come from a survey conducted by ACTFL (Hammond and Scebold, 1980). Questionnaires were sent to all state foreign language supervisors. In the case of 20 states from which data could not be obtained by using this method, questionnaires were sent directly to a random sample of select school districts in each of the states. • Data for 1985 came from a survey conducted by ACTFL (Dandonoli, 1985). Surveys were distributed to state representatives of education in each state and the District of Columbia. Thirty-six states responded with enrollment data. Enrollment data for the other 15 states were estimated using national averages and partial data received (Dandonoli, p. 457). • Data for 1994 and 2000 come from a survey conducted by ACTFL in the fall of 1994 (Draper and Hicks, 1996; Draper and Hicks, 2000). Surveys were distributed to representatives of state departments of education and the District of Columbia. Forty-eight states responded with enrollment data. Enrollment data for the remaining states were estimated based on data from regional and national trends (Draper and Hicks, 1994, p. 303). We should note that these data are restricted to enrollments in public high schools as the focus of education reform in this book. The addition of private secondary school data would undoubtedly increase the percentages found in the tables. Data are not as widely available for private institutions and do not represent the vast majority of students and their enrollment trends in secondary education. Since 1890, public high schools have substantially out-enrolled private institutions. Since the mid 1910s, public high schools have accounted for 90 percent or more of secondary school enrollments. Readers who are interested in private secondary school enrollments should consult the primary sources cited in the individual appendices. APPENDIX E Appendix E presents the categorization of enrollment data by level of instruction for eight years: 1905, 1924, 1933, 1948, 1963, 1985, 1994, and 2000. These years represent points of extreme high and low enrollments over the past 10 decades. Enrollments by level are summarized by the beginning level (Levels I and II) and by the advanced level (Levels III through VI and AP). These appendices are based on enrollments in four foreign languages: French, German, Latin, and Spanish. These four languages account for at least 94.8 percent of the total foreign language enrollments in each year. Restricting enrollments by level to these languages provided a consistent measure to account for the lack of data provided by level for every foreign language in each of the enrollment surveys. Notes and citations are included for each year. The reader is urged to consult these notes and primary data sources for further details. Estimation Procedure for 1905 The primary data source for 1905 did not provide enrollments by level. An estimate was obtained by using the following procedure. According to the

< previous page

page_136

next page >

< previous page

page_137

next page >

Page 137 commissioner of education’s report for the 1905–1906 school year, enrollments in grades nine to 12 consisted of the following percentage breakdown: 43.0 percent in grade nine, 26.0 percent in grade 10, 18.0 percent in grade 11, and 13.0 percent in grade 12 (U.S. Office of Education, 1908, p. 699). Through the 1890s, these reports highlighted the curricular recommendations of the Committee of Ten. The 1905 report estimated that 5.0 percent of the student population was enrolled within a classical course of study and 4.1 percent within a scientific course (U.S. Office of Education, 1905, p. 698). With a graduation rate of 11.8 percent, it was estimated in the primary source that 35.6 percent of graduates were prepared for college (p. 698). Based on the emphasis of the Committee of Ten recommendations and the limited course offerings beyond the traditional subject disciplines, enrollments were estimated to be consistent with the percentage enrollments for each grade level. This situation assumes that every student was engaged in some form of foreign language study and might overestimate these enrollments. The estimates for Levels I-IV are a liberal estimate based upon the corresponding percentage of students enrolled in grades 9–12. APPENDICES F AND G Appendices F and G provide summary data relating to course taking and state education law. This data is vital to understanding the underlying patterns of educational practice related to policy development. Appendix F presents changing course offerings and enrollment percentages by course and subject discipline from 1890 to 1982. Appendix G summarizes education law pertaining to foreign language learning in K–12 schools across all 50 states. These appendices are referenced throughout the text as historic and contemporary evidence of change in education.

< previous page

page_137

next page >

< previous page

page_138

next page >

page_138

next page >

Page 138 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_139

next page >

Page 139 A Percentage of Public High School Students, Grades 9–12, Enrolled in Foreign Language Study: 1889–2000

< previous page

page_139

next page >

< previous page

page_140

Page 140 YearLatin

FrenchGermanSpanishaAll Total Percentage Enrolled in Others Foreign Language 1889 70,411 11,858 21,338 — 6,202 109,809 % 64.1 10.0 19.4 — 5.7 100.0 54.1 1890 87,006 12,023 33,683 — 6,484 139,196 % 62.5 8.6 24.2 — 4.7 100.0 65.8 1891 93,144 12,423 24,986 — 7,397 137,950 % 67.5 9.0 18.1 — 5.4 100.0 57.6 1892 100,31914,959 27,760 — 7,922 150,960 % 66.5 9.9 18.4 — 5.3 100.0 64.8 1893 129,52419,702 34,056 — 9,633 192,915 % 67.1 10.2 17.7 — 5.0 100.0 66.7 1894 153,95022,813 39,901 — 10,859 227,523 % 67.7 10.0 17.5 — 4.8 100.0 65.0 1895 175,71526,597 45,670 — 11,821 259,803 % 67.6 10.2 17.6 — 4.6 100.0 68.3 1896 198,01428,098 50,872 — 12,810 289,794 % 68.3 9.7 17.6 — 4.4 100.0 70.8 1897 223,30733,917 59,577 — 14,021 330,822 % 67.5 10.3 18.0 — 4.2 100.0 73.6 1898 239,98137,817 66,706 — 14,858 359,362 % 66.8 10.5 18.6 — 4.1 100.0 75.5

< previous page

page_140

next page > Total High School Population 202,963 211,596 239,556 232,951 289,274 350,099 380,493 409,433 449,600 476,227

next page >

< previous page Page 141 1899 262,767 % 67.0 1900 273,314 % 65.7 1901 275,674 % 64.7 1902 297,925 % 64.1 1903 323,028 % 63.4 1904 341,248 % 61.9 1905 363,091 % 61.8 1909 362,548 % 58.4 1914 434,925 % 50.8 1921 593,086 % 50.0 1924 561,982 % 48.1 1927 636,592 % 46.3

40,395 10.3 44,889 10.8 47,409 11.1 50,486 10.9 56,632 11.1 62,120 11.3 63,935 10.9 73,161 11.8 102,516 12.0 333,162 28.1 331,900 28.4 406,012 29.6

< previous page

next page >

page_141 74,408 19.0 83,702 20.1 89,486 21.0 104,435 22.5 118,861 23.3 1 37,661 25.0 151,454 25.8 1 75,083 28.2 284,294 33.2 13,918 1.2 32,465 2.8 53,250 3.9

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4,920 0.8 31,743 3.7 242,71 5 20.5 239,271 20.5 273,564 19.9

14,813 3.8 14,232 3.4 13,780 3.2 12,033 2.6 11,158 2.2 10,002 1.8 8,886 1.5 5,511 0.9 3,351 0.4 2,234 0.2 b3,096 0.2 4,036 0.3

page_141

392,383 100.0 416,137 100.0 426,349 100.0 464,879 100.0 509,679 100.0 551,031 100.0 587,366 100.0 621,223 100.0 856,829 100.0 1,185,115 100.0 1,168,714 100.0 1,373,454 100.0

75.6 76.8 77.4 78.5 80.2 a81.1 81.3 67.9 64.5 53.1 44.3 40.9

519,251 541,730 550,61 1 592,213 635,808 679,702 722,692 915,061 1,328,984 2,230,000 2,635,747 3,354,473

next page >

< previous page Page 142 Year Latin

French

1933 721,320488,710 % 44.8 30.3 c1943 422,304255,375 % 35.7 21.6 d1958617,500479,769 % 32.4 25.2 e1959639,776603,733 % 29.0 27.4 1960 654,670744,404

page_142 GermanSpanish aAII Total Others 106,672 6.6 43,025 3.6 93,054 4.9 123,581 5.6 150,764

% 26.0 29.5 6.0 1961 695,297908,082 184,820 % 24.1 31.5 6.4 h1962702,1 996,771 211,676 35 % 22.7 32.2 6.8 1963 680,2341,130,987260,488 % 19.7 32.7 7.5 1964 590,0471,194,991285,613 % 16.9 34.3 8.2 1965 591,4451,251,373328,028 % 16.2 34.2 9.0

< previous page

next page >

Percentage Enrolled Total High in Foreign Language School Population 280,329 14,713 1,611,744 5,620,626 17.4 0.9 100.0 28.7 443,935 18,243 1,182,882 5,399,452 37.5 1.5 100.0 21.9 691,024 25,189 d1,906,536 7,897,232 36.2 1.3 100.0 24.1 802,266 e35,535e2,204,891 8,155,573 36.4 1.6 100.0 27.0 933,409 f39,003 f2,522,2 3,649,495 50 37.0 1.6 100.0 29.2 1,054,730g44,658g2,887,587 9,246,925 36.5 1.5 100.0 31.2 1,137,757h45,098h3,093,437 9,891,185 36.8 1.5 1,336,10554,120 38.6 1.6 1,362,33155,285 39.1 1.6 1,426,82262,639 39.0 1.7

100.0 i3,461,934 100.0 i3,488,767 100.0 i3,660,307 100.0

31.3 32.2 31.5 31.5

page_142

10,750,081 11,075,343 11,611,197

next page >

< previous page

page_143

next page >

Page 143 1968 371,977 1,328,100 423,196 1,698,034 79,974 i3,901,281 12,721,352 % 9.5 34.0 10.9 43.5 2.1 100.0 30.7 1970 265,293 1,230,686 410,535 1,810,775 62,243 i3,779,532 13,301,883 % 7.0 32.6 10.9 47.9 1.7 100.0 28.4 1974 167,165 977,858 392,983 1,673,057 79,125 i3,295,188 13,648,906 % 5.1 29.7 12.0 50.9 2.4 100.0 24.1 1976 150,470 888,351 352,690 1,717,023 63,078 i3,171,612 13,952,058 % 4.7 28.0 11.1 54.1 2.0 100.0 22.7 1978 j151,794 i856,002 330,637 j1,670,375 71,115 j3,079,923 13,941,369 % 4.9 27.8 10.7 54.2 2.3 100.0 22.1 1982 169,580 857,984 266,901 1,562,739 k98,780 i2,956,034 12,879,254 % 5.7 29.0 9.0 52.9 3.3 100.0 23.0 1985 176,841 1,133,725 312,162 2,334,404 56,568 i4,01 3,700 12,466,506 % 4.4 28.2 7.8 58.2 1.4 100.0 32.2 1990 163,923 1,089,355 295,398 2,611,367 96,882 4,256,925 11,099,648 % 3.9 25.6 6.9 61.3 2.3 100.0 38.4 1994 188,833 1,105,857 325,964 3,219,775 161,381 5,001,810 11,847,469 % 3.8 22.1 6.5 64.4 3.2 100.0 42.2 2000 n 177,477 1,075,421 283,301 4,057,608 304,331 5,898,138 13,457,780 % 3.0 18.2 4.8 68.8 5.2 100.0 43.8 aDtraper and Hicks (1996) reported the percentage of public high school students enrolled in foreign language study for 1905 (reported as 1904 in this appendix) inadvertently as 88.6 percent. Previous enrollment summaries had reported the 1905 combined modern language and Latin enrollment figure as 79.5 percent. This figure appears to be a calculation error found only in this single (Draper and Hicks) report’s summary table. This error has been corrected. Additionally, enrollments in Greek up to 1948 went unreported in previous reports’ summary tables found in Parker (1955) and the MLA and ACTFL survey series. Figures for Greek have been included in the present table for the years 1889 to 1948.

< previous page

page_143

next page >

< previous page

page_144

next page >

Page 144 bFor 1924, enrollments in the “other” languages category include grades seven and eight. The grade level was not distinguished in the original data (American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages, 1928, p.363). cFor 1948, Parker (1957) included unreported enrollments in grades 7–8 in the totals. This situation has persisted through the enrollment summary tables of the MLA and ACTFL survey series. The primary source for 1948 (Rice et al., 1951) allows for the separation of enrollments in grades seven and eight from grades 9–12. These enrollments have been removed in the present table. Note that French and Spanish enrollments include high school conversa tional courses as reported in the primary data source. dThe enrollment total for 1958 represents a corrected total from previous enrollment summaries in the MLA and ACTFL survey series. Previous enrollment summaries did not subtract reported enrollments in grades seven and eight in Hebrew (881 students), Italian (2,973 students), Russian (82 students), and the “other” languages category (3,109 students). This correction was made using the primary data source (Childers, 1960). Additionally, enrollment data for 1958 were revised in the 1959 enrollment survey report (Childers, 1961) for the following languages: Latin, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Russian. The 1958 figures in this table represent these corrections and revisions. eEnrollment data for 1959 were revised in the 1960 enrollment report (Childers, 1962) for the following languages: Latin, French, German, Spanish, and Russian. Total enrollments in “other” languages and for all foreign languages are different from the MLA and ACTFL survey series. This situation might be due to fact that the enrollments for Russian, which were revised in the 1960 enrollment report (Childers, 1962) from 7,533 to 7,513, were inadvertently changed to 7,055 in the 1976 enrollment report (Scebold, Egan and Hammond, 1980). This error has persisted in subsequent enrollment summary tables since this time and has been corrected in the present table. fFor 1960, total enrollments in “other” languages and for all foreign languages are different from the MLA and ACTFL survey series. This situation might be due to the fact that enrollments for Russian, reported as 9,607 in 1960, were inadvertently changed to 9,722 in the summarytable included in the 1968 survey report (Kant, 1970). This error has persisted in subsequent enrollment summary tables since this time and has beencorrected in the present table. gFor 1961, total enrollments in “other” languages and all foreign languages are different from the MLA and ACTFL survey series because enrollments in Ancient Greek for 1961, a total of 83 students, were not included in enrollments summaries reported after 1964 (Eshelman and Lian, 1964). No explana tion has been found for this omission. This error has been corrected in the present table. hRevised data for 1962 was reported in Eshelman and Dershem (1965). This 1965 report did not include revised data for all“other” languages reported in the primary data source for 1962 (Eshelman and Lian, 1964). Enrollments included in this table are revised except for select languages in the “other” languages category. Please see Appendix C and its accompanying notes for a detailed account of which languages were revised. iFor the years 1963–1976 and 1982–1985, total enrollments for all foreign languages were calculated from the primary data sources (ACTFL, 1984;

< previous page

page_144

next page >

< previous page

page_145

next page >

Page 145 Dandanoli, 1987; Eshelman and Dershem, 1965; Dershem, 1966; Kant, 1970; Scebold, 1973; Scebold, 1976; Scebold, Egan, and Hammond, 1980; and Teague and Rutimann, 1967). These totals differ from those reported in later enrollment summaries (for example, Draper and Hicks, 1996). This discrepancy is found in the calculation of “other” languages. Appendix A reflects corrections based on primary data sources. jFor 1978, enrjollments in Latin, French, and Spanish differ from those in the proceeding survey of 1982 (ACTFL, 1984). These discrepancies were not explained in the 1982 survey summary report. The enrollments for these three languages in the present table are taken from theprimary data source for 1978 (Hammond and Scebold, 1980). Because of these discrepancies, total enrollments in foreign languages for 1978 differ from later enrollment summaries in the MLA and ACTFL survey series. kFor 1982, enrkollments for Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiian, Tagalog, Portuguese, Polish, Czech, and other none-categorized lan guages represent enrollments in grades 7–12 rather than 9–12. These grades cannot be distinguished in the primary data. Notes . The data reported for 1890–1948 in the MLA and ACTFL survey series listed spring enrollment dates rather than fall dates. These have been corrected in this appendix and in subsequent appendices to be consistent with the fall dates reported from 1958–1994. Enrollments from 1889 to 1948 reported in the MLA and ACTFL survey series did not include enrollments in Greek. These have been included in Appendix A. Sources . Surveys from 1889 to 1948 were conducted primarily by the U.S. Office of Education. For the academic years 1933–1934 and 1948–1949, the surveys collected detailed enrollment data by level of instruction in addition to total enrollments in each foreign language. For the academic year 1924–1925, the American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages cooperated with the U.S. Bureau of Education to collect detailed national survey data on foreign language study (American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages, 1928). American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages. Enrollment in the Foreign Languages in Secondary Schools and Colleges in the United States 4. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1928. Jessen, C. A., and L. B. Herlihy. Offerings and Registrations in High-School Subjects 1933–1934. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Rice, M. C., R. C. Story, J. D. Hull, , and G. S. Wright. “Offerings and Enrollments in High-School Subjects.”Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1948–1950 . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, (1951): 1–118. U.S. Department of the Interior. Biennial Survey of Education 1921–1922 . Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1924. U.S. Department of the Interior. Biennial Survey of Education 1926–1928. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1890–1891 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894a. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1891–1892 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894b.

< previous page

page_145

next page >

< previous page

page_146

next page >

Page 146 U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1892–1893 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1895. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1893–1894 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1896. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1895–1896 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1897. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1896–1897 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1898. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1897–1898 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1899. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1898–1899 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1900–1901 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1902. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1902 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1903. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1904 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1906. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1907. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1906 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ended June, 30, 1910. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1911. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1917 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1917. Beginning in 1958, national surveys of foreign language enrollments were conducted by the MLA with funding from the National Defense Education Act. Nine surveys conducted from the 1958–1959 to 1973– 1974 academic years collected detailed enrollment data by language and level in public secondary schools. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1958.Contract OEC-SAF-8342. New York: Modern Language Association, August 8, 1960. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1959.Report Number NDEA-VI-1-2. New York: Modern Language Association, November 1961.

< previous page

page_146

next page >

< previous page

page_147

next page >

Page 147 Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1960. Report Number v77, n4 pt2. New York: Modern Language Association, September 1962. Dershem, J. F. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Fall 1964. Report Number MQG42674, Bureau Number BR-5-1277, Contract OEC-5-14-035. New York: Modern Language Association, May 1, 1966. Eshelman, J. N., and J. F. Dershem. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1963. Report Number NDEA-VI-22, Contract OEC-4-14-037. New York: Modern Language Association, January 31, 1965. Eshelman, J. N., and N. W. Lian. Foreign-Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Public Schools—Fall 1961 and Fall 1962 and Non-Public Schools—Fall 1962. Report Number NDEA-VI21, Contract OEC-2-14-033. New York: Modern Language Association, January 31, 1964. Kant, J. G. “Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1968.” Foreign Language Annals 3, no. 3, (1970): 400–458. Scebold, C. E. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1970. Bureau Number BR-1-1012, Contract OEC-0-71-2404-823. New York: Modern Language Association, June 1973. Scebold, C. E. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1974.Contract OEC-0-74-3411. New York: Modern Language Association, December 1976. Teague, C., and H. Rutimann. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1965. Report Number BR-5-1092, Contract OEC-6-14-015. New York: Modern Language Association, September 1, 1967. Beginning with the 1976–1977 school year, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) conducted eight national surveys end ing with the 2000–2001 school year. These surveys collected detailed enrollment data by language and level in public secondary schools. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1982.” Foreign Language Annals 17, no. 6, (1984): 611–623. Dandonoli, P. “Report on Foreign Language Enrollment in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1985.” Foreign Language Annals 20, no. 5, (1987): 457–470. Draper, J. B. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1989 and Fall 1990. Contract PO17A00043. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, October 1991. Draper, J. B., and J. H. Hicks. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1994.” Foreign Language Annals 29, no. 3, (1996): 303–306. Draper, J. B., and J. H. Hicks. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Schools, Fall 2000. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, May 2002.

< previous page

page_147

next page >

< previous page

page_148

next page >

Page 148 Hammond, S. B., and C. E. Scebold. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1978. Grant G007901693. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, October 1980. Scebold, C. E., H. F. Egan, and S. B. Hammond. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1976. Grant G000-77-00391. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1980. Two national studies have not been included in this data summary. The MLA reported a survey of public high school enrollments for the 1954–1955 school year (Modern Language Association, 1955). Although this MLA survey provides national data on foreign language enrollments by level in public secondary schools, data was only analyzed from 41 states. The analysis did not attempt to compensate for missing data via direct school contacts, esti mation from previous years, and regional trends. The resultant total enrollments for each foreign language are uncharacteristically low. For these reasons, this survey is not included in this study. The second study is a recently completed national survey of K–12 foreign language instruction conducted by the Center for Applied Linguistics(CAL) (Rhodes and Branaman, 1999). This study consisted of surveys sent to school administrators. It presents enrollment data as percentages rather than raw enrollment figures for language and by level of study (N. Rhodes, personal communication, February, 11, 2000). This fundamental difference in methodology and presentation of data between this survey and others included in the present table led to the decision to not include these data.

< previous page

page_148

next page >

< previous page

page_149

next page >

Page 149 B Percentage of Populations Enrolled by Traditional and Alternative Enrollment Definitions: 1889–2000

< previous page

page_149

next page >

< previous page

Page 150 YearaPopulation Total High Total Foreign Percentage Percentage 14 to 17 School Language Enrolled in Enrolled in Years of Age Population Enrollments High School Foreign Language 1889 5,355,000 202,963 109,809 3.8 54.1 1890 n/a 211,596 139,196 — 65.8 1891 n/a 239,556 137,950 — 57.6 1892 n/a 232,951 150,960 — 64.8 1893 n/a 289,274 192,915 — 66.7 1894 n/a 350,099 227,523 — 65.0 1895 n/a 380,493 259,803 — 68.3 1896 n/a 409,433 289,794 — 70.8 1897 n/a 449,600 330,822 — 73.6 1898 n/a 476,227 359,362 — 75.5 1899 6,152,000 519,251 392,383 8.5 75.6 1900 6,132,000 541,730 416,137 8.8 76.8 1901 6,228,000 550,611 426,349 8.8 77.4 1902 6,333,000 592,213 464,879 9.4 78.5 1903 6,433,000 635,808 509,679 9.9 80.2

< previous page

next page >

page_150

page_150

Percentage Aged 14 to 17 Enrolled in Foreign Language 2.1 — — — — — — — — — 6.4 6.8 6.9 7.3 7.9

next page >

< previous page Page 151 1904 6,539,000 1905 6,654,000 1909 7,123,000 1914 7,563,000 1921 8,079,000 1924 8,669,000 1927 9,093,000 1933 9,445,000 1948 8,705,000 1958 10,606,000 1959 10,951,000 1960 11,211,000 1961 12,046,000 1962 12,751,000 1963 13,492,000 1964 14,265,000 1965 14,145,000 1968 15,170,000 1970 15,921,000

< previous page

next page >

page_151 679,702 722,692 915,061 1,328,984 2,230,000 2,635,747 3,354,473 5,620,626 5,399,452 7,897,232 8,155,573 3,649,495 9,246,925 9,891,185 10,750,081 11,075,343 11,611,197 12,721,352 13,301,883

551,031 587,366 621,223 856,829 1,185,115 1,168,714 1,373,454 1,611,744 1,182,882 1,906,536 2,204,891 2,522,250 2,887,587 3,093,437 3,461,934 3,488,767 3,660,307 3,901,281 3,779,532

page_151

10.4 10.9 12.9 17.6 27.6 30.4 36.9 59.5 62.0 74.5 74.5 77.2 76.8 77.6 79.7 77.6 82.1 83.9 83.6

81.1 81.3 67.9 64.5 53.1 55.3 40.9 28.7 21.9 24.1 27.0 29.2 31.2 31.3 32.2 31.5 31.5 30.7 28.4

8.4 8.8 8.7 11.3 14.7 13.5 15.1 17.1 13.6 18.0 20.1 22.5 24.0 24.3 25.7 24.5 25.9 25.7 23.7

next page >

< previous page

page_152

next page >

Page 152 YearaPopulation Total High Total Foreign Percentage Percentage Percentage Aged 14 14 to 17 School Language Enrolled in Enrolled in to 17 Enrolled in Years of Age Population Enrollments High School Foreign Foreign Language Language 1974 17,033,000 13,648,906 3,295,188 80.1 24.1 19.4 1976 17,117,000 13,952,058 3,171,612 81.2 22.7 18.5 1978 16,944,000 13,941,369 3,079,923 82.3 22.1 18.2 1932 15,041,000 12,879,254 2,956,034 85.6 23.0 19.7 1985 14,865,000 12,466,506 4,013,700 83.9 32.2 27.0 1990 13,312,000 11,099,648 4,256,925 83.4 38.4 32.0 1994 14,427,000 11,847,469 5,001,810 82.1 42.2 34.7 2000 15,725,000 13,457,780 5,898,138 85.6 43.8 37.5 aData for the adolescent population age 14 to 17 from 1890–1990 are from the U.S. Department of Education (1993). Data for the years 1889 and 1994 are from the U.S. Department of Education (1998). Data for the year 2000 are from the U.S. Department of Education (2002). Notes . The column ìpercentage of the population enrolled in high schoolî should not be confused with similar data describing the percentage of the school population enrolled in public versus private high schools. Public high schools have enrolled 89 percent or more of all secondary school enrollments since 1910 (U.S. Department of Education, 2000, Table 57). The term n/a means ìnot available.î Sources : American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages. Enrollment in the Foreign Languages in Secondary Schools and Colleges in the United States 4. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1928. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1982.” Foreign Language Annals 17,no. 6, (1984): 611–623.

< previous page

page_152

next page >

< previous page

page_153

next page >

Page 153 Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1958. Contract OEC-SAF-8342. New York: Modern Language Association, August 8, 1960. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1959. Report Number NDEA-VI-1-2. New York: Modern Language Association, November 1961. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1960. Report Number v77, n4 pt2. New York: Modern Language Association, September 1962. Dandonoli, P. “Report on Foreign Language Enrollment in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1985.” Foreign Language Annals 20, no. 5, (1987): 457–470. Dershem, J. F. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Fall 1964.Report Number MQG42674, Bureau Number BR-5-1277), Contract OEC-5-14-035. New York: Modern Language Association, May 1, 1966. Draper, J. B. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1989 and Fall 1990. Contract PO17A00043. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, October 1991. Draper, J. B., and J. H. Hicks. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1994.” Foreign Language Annals 29, no. 3, (1996): 303–306. Draper, J. B., and J. H. Hicks. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Schools, Fall 2000. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, May 2002. Dershem, J. F. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Fall 1964. Report Number MQG42674, Bureau Number BR-5-1277), Contract OEC-5-14-035. New York: Modern Language Association, May 1, 1966. Eshelman, J. N., and J. F. Dershem. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1963. Report Number NDEA-VI-22, Contract OEC-4-14-037. New York: Modern Language Association, January 31, 1965. Hammond, S. B., and C. E. Scebold. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1978. Grant G007901693. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, October 1980. Jessen, C. A., and L. B. Herlihy. Offerings and Registrations in High-School Subjects 1933–1934. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1938. Kant, J. G. “Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1968.” Foreign Language Annals 3, no. 3, (1970): 400–458. Rice, M. C., R. C. Story, J. D. Hull, and G. S. Wright. “Offerings and Enrollments in High-School Subjects.” Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1948–1950. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, (1951): 1–118.

< previous page

page_153

next page >

< previous page

page_154

next page >

Page 154 Scebold, C. E. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1970. Bureau Number BR-1-1012, Contract OEC-0-71-2404-823. New York: Modern Language Association, June 1973. Scebold, C. E. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1974. Contract OEC-0-74-3411. New York: Modern Language Association, December 1976. Scebold, C. E., H. F. Egan, and S. B. Hammond. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1976. Grant G000-77-00391. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1980. Teague, C., and H. Rutimann.Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1965.Report Number BR-5-1092, Contract OEC-6-14-015. New York: Modern Language Association, September 1, 1967. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 1998. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 98-013, 1998. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1998. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 1999-036, 1999a. U.S. Department of the Interior. Biennial Survey of Education 1921–1922. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1924. U.S. Department of the Interior. Biennial Survey of Education 1926–1928. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1890-1891 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894a. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1891–1892 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894b. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1892–1893 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1895. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1893–1894 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1896. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1895–1896 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1897. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1896–1897 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1898. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1897–1898 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1899. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1898–1899 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900.

< previous page

page_154

next page >

< previous page

page_155

next page >

Page 155 U.S. Office of Education Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1900–1901 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1902. U.S. Office of Education Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1902 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1903. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1904 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1906. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1907. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1906 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ended June, 30, 1910. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1911. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1917 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1917.

< previous page

page_155

next page >

< previous page

page_156

next page >

page_156

next page >

Page 156 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_157

next page >

Page 157 C Enrollments and Percentage of Public High School Students Enrolled in Foreign Languages Other Than French, Latin, German, and Spanish: 1889–2000

< previous page

page_157

next page >

< previous page Page 158 Year 1889– 1921 % C1924 % 1927 % 1933 % 1948 % d1958 % 1959 % 1960 % 1961 % 1962 %

aAfrican Languages —

American Sign Language —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

< previous page

next page >

page_158

ArabicArmenianBohemianbChineseCzech —

—

—

—

—

— — — — — — — — — — — 24 0.001 68 0.003 90 0.003 79 0.003

— — — — — — — — — — —

— 185 0.01 — — 547 0.03 54 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — 21 0.001 21 0.001 75 0.003 126 0.004 254 0.01

— — — — — 89 0.005 — — 7 0.0004 23 0.001 10 0.0004 16 0.001 59 0.002

page_158

— — — — — — —

next page >

< previous page Page 159 1963 % 1964 % 1965 % 1968 % 1970 % 1974 % 1976 % 1978 % e1982 % 1985 % 1990 % 1994 % 2000 n %

— — — — — — 474 0.01 926 0.02 774 0.02 — — 63 0.002 — — — — 40 0.001 198 0.004 33 0.0006

< previous page

next page >

page_159 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18 0.0004 2,112 0.04 17,193 0.3

127 0.004 97 0.003 25 0.0007 2 0.0001 31 0.001 184 0.01 — — 7 0.0002 e51 0.002 105 0.003 478 0.01 172 0.003 579

page_159

— — — — — — — — — — 294 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

592 0.02 891 0.03 1,099 0.03 806 0.02 1,082 0.03 3,977 0.1 — — 1,169 0.04 e1,980 0.1 1,688 0.04 7,278 0.04 8,745 0.03 1,632 0.03

23 0.001 85 0.002 102 0.003 142 0.004 265 0.01 128 0.004 — — — — e38 0.001 — — 105 0.003 — — 9 0.0002

next page >

< previous page

page_160

next page >

Page 160 YearDanishDutchEstonianFinnish General Foreign Language fGreekHaitian Hawaiian Hebrew 1889 6,202 — — — % — — — — — 5.7 — — — 1890 6,484 — — — % — — — — — 4.7 — — — 1891 7,397 — — — % — — — — — 5.4 — — — 1892 7,922 — — — % — — — — — 5.3 — — — 1893 9,633 — — — % — — — — — 5.0 — — — 1894 10,859 — — — % — — — — — 4.8 — — — 1895 11,821 — — — % — — — — — 4.6 — — — 1896 12,810 — — — % — — — — — 4.4 — — — 1897 14,021 — — — % — — — — — 4.2 — — — 1898 14,858 — — — % — — — — — 4.1 — — —

< previous page

page_160

next page >

< previous page Page 161 1899 % 1900 % 1901 % 1902 % 1903 % 1904 % 1905 % 1909 % 1914 % 1921 % 1924 % 1927 %

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

— — —

— — —

—

—

—

—

— — —

—

—

—

—

—

< previous page

next page >

page_161

page_161

14,813 3.8 14,232 3.4 13,780 2.5 12,033 2.6 11,158 2.2 10,002 1.8 8,886 1.5 5,511 0.9 3,351 0.4 1,873 0.2 1,589 0.1 1,514 0.1

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — —

— 167 —

—

—

next page >

< previous page

page_162

next page >

Page 162 YearDanishDutchEstonianFinnish General Foreign Language fGreekHaitian Hawaiian Hebrew 1933 23 — 678 496 — 20 100 % 0.001 — — — 0.04 0.03 — 0.001 0.006 1948 — — 13,020 430 — — 2,814 % — — — — 1.1 0.04 — — 0.2 1958 — — — 261 — 96 — % — — — — — 0.01 — 0.005 — 1959 — — — 228 — 36 4,262 % — — — — — 0.01 — 0.002 0.2 1960 — — — 236 — 132 4,160 % — — — — — 0.01 — 0.01 0.2 1961 — — — 579 — 219 4,260 % — — — — — 0.02 — 0.001 0.2 1962 — — — — — 230 — 180 g4,517 % — — — — — 0.01 — 0.01 0.2 1963 — — — 57 — 120 3,197 % — — — — — 0.002 — 0.004 0.09 1964 — — — — — 136 — 178 3,963 % — — — — — 0.004 — 0.01 0.1 1965 — — — — — 152 — 238 3,539 % — — — — — 0.004 — 0.007 0.1

< previous page

page_162

next page >

< previous page Page 163 1968 % 1970 % 1974 % 1976 % 1978 % e1982 % 1985 % 1990 % 1994 % 2000 n %

— — — — — —

—

— — — 321 0.01

— — — — — — — — —

1 0.00002 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— 1 0.00003

— — —

—

—

—

—

—

—

— — — — — — — — —

— — —

— — —

— — —

— — —

— — —

< previous page

next page >

page_163 — — —

100 0.003 — — — —

page_163

425 0.01 270 0.01 1,222 0.04 306 0.01 1,301 0.04 e707 0.02 79 0.002 255 0.01 928 0.02 835 0.01

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 41 0.001 118 0.002

124 0.003 93 0.003 91 0.003 668 0.02 726 0.02 e538 0.02 — 980 0.02 1,547 0.03 — —

1,527 0.04 1,080 0.03 5,086 0.2 1,164 0.04 3,366 0.1 e1,745 0.1 1,422 0.04 1,552 0.04 1,010 0.02 835 0.01

next page >

< previous page

page_164

next page >

Page 164 Year Hindi-Urdu Hungarian Italian Japanese Korean Lithuanian aNative American Norse 1889–1914 — — — — — — — — % — — — — — — — — 1921 — — 359 — — — — — % — — 0.03 — — — — — 1924 — — — — — — — 747 % — — — — — — — 0.05 1927 — — 2,552 — — — — — % — — 0.2 — — — — — 1933 — 10,434 — — — — 566 % — — 0.7 — — — — 0.04 1948 — — 13,312 — — — — 172 % — — 1.1 — — — — 0.02 1958 — — 22,133 — — — — — % — — 1.2 — — — — — 1959 — — 21,118 63 — — — — % — — 1.0 0.003 — — — — 1960 — — 20,026 609 — — — — % — — 0.8 0.02 — — — — 1961 — — 22,277 865 — — — — % — — 0.8 0.03 — — — — 1962 — — g21,654 910 — — — — % — — 0.7 0.03 — — — —

< previous page

page_164

next page >

< previous page Page 165 1963 % 1964 % 1965 % 1968 % 1970 % 1974 % 1976 % 1978 % 1982 % 1985 % 1990 % 1994 % 2000 n %

— — — — — — — — — — 25 0.001 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

< previous page

next page >

page_165 — — — — — — — — — — 70 0.002 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

23,250 0.7 24,735 0.7 25,233 0.7 26,920 0.7 27,321 0.7 40,233 1.2 45,587 1.4 45,518 1.5 44,114 1.5 47,289 1.3 40,402 1.0 43,838 0.9 64,098 1.1

1,486 0.04 2,231 0.06 1,727 0.05 2,044 0.1 7,388 0.2 7,349 0.2 3,965 0.1 6,227 0.2 6,246 0.2 8,557 0.2 25,123 0.6 42,290 0.9 50,804 0.9

page_165

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5 0.0001 638 0.01 202 0.003

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 0.004 — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — 19 0.0005 25 0.001 198 0.01 18 0.001 80 0.003 — — — — 797 0.02 3,155 0.1 4,207 0.07

— — — — — — 65 0.002 288 0.01 — — 118 0.004 — — — — — — — — — — —

next page >

< previous page

page_166

next page >

Page 166 Year NorwegianPolishPortugueseRussianSlovak Spanish for SwedishTurkishVietnamese Native Speakers 1889– — — — — — — — — — 1921 % — — — — — — — — — 1905 — — — — — — — — — % — — — — — — — — — 1909 — — — — — — — — — % — — — — — — — — — 1914 — — — — — — — — — % — — — — — — — — — 1921 — — — — — — — — — % — — — — — — — — — 1924 — — — — — — 408 — — % — — — — — — 0.03 — — 1927 — — — — — — — — — % — — — — — — — — — 1933 — 1,122 — — — — 638 — — % — 0.07 — — — — 0.04 — — 1948 — 1,056 307 14 — — 310 — % — 0.09 0.03 0.00008 — — 0.03 — — 1958 210 499 559 4,055 — — 228 — — % 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.2 — — 0.01 — —

< previous page

page_166

next page >

< previous page Page 167 1959 % 1960 % 1961 % 1962 % 1963 % 1964 % 1965 % 1968 % 1970 % 1974 % 1976 % 1978 %

308 0.01 111 0.004 182 0.01 170 0.01 94 0.003 260 0.01 37 0.001 28 0.0007 — — 326 0.01 — — 121 0.004

< previous page

next page >

page_167 552 0.03 438 0.02 487 0.02 586 0.02 255 0.01 618 0.02 580 0.02 198 0.005 463 0.01 757 0.02 — — 271 0.01

526 0.02 600 0.02 616 0.02 530 0.02 662 0.02 274 0.01 559 0.02 454 0.01 1,746 0.05 2,635 0.1 — — 2,664 0.1

h7,513 0.3 i9,607 0.4 13,224 0.5 g15,832 0.5 21,552 0.06 20,485 0.6 26,716 0.7 24,318 0.6 20,162 0.5 15,158 0.5 11,252 0.4 8,789 0.3

page_167

— — — — 10 0.0003 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

229 0.01 209 0.01 136 0.01 97 0.003 98 0.003 128 0.004 234 0.01 136 0.004 168 0.004 273 0.01 — — 585 0.02

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4 0.0001 — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

next page >

< previous page

Page 168 Year NorwegianPolishPortugueseRussianSlovak e1982 % 1985 % 1990 % 1994 % 2000 n %

— — — — 123 0.003 21 0.0004 —

e371 0.01 4 0.0001 — — 372 0.007 115

e212 0.01 309 0.01 709 0.02 4,779 0.1 145

5,702 0.2 6,405 0.2 16,491 0.4 16,426 0.3 10,612

— — — — — — — — —

—

0.002

0.002

0.2

—

< previous page

next page >

page_168

Spanish for SwedishTurkishVietnamese Native Speakers — — — — — — — — — — — 117 — — — 0.003 — 131 — — — 0.003 — — 17,766 — — 576 0.4 — — 0.01 127,551 — — 21 2.2

page_168

—

—

0.0004

next page >

< previous page

Page 169 Year Yiddish Not Identified Year Yiddish Not Identified 1899– 1964 — 1,226 1958 — — % — 0.04 % — — 1965 — 2,398 1959 — 632 % — 0.07 % — 0.03 1968 9 — 1960 — 2,722 % 0.0002 — % — 0.1 1970 — — 1961 — 1,571 % — — % — 0.1 1974 — — 1962 — — % — — % — 1976 — — 1963 — 2,607 % — — % — 0.1

< previous page

next page >

page_169

page_169

Year 1978 %

Yiddish Not Identified — — — —

e1982 %

— —

e37,076 1.3

1985 %

— —

5,781 0.1

1990 %

— —

2,395 0.1

1994 %

— —

16,767 0.3

2000 n %

— —

66,623 1.1

next page >

< previous page

page_170

next page >

Page 170 aEnrollments in individual African and Native American languages were collapsed in the majority of surveys into two generic categories. These generic categories have been reproduced in this table because individual languages could not be separated consistently for each year. Please consult the primary data for the availability of enrollment data in individual languages. bEnrollments in Chinese include both Cantonese and Mandarin. These two languages were collapsed into one “Chinese” category in the majority of sur veys, making it impossible to separate them for every year in this table. Please consult the primary data for the availability of enrollment data in individual languages. cFor 1924, enrollments in Bohemian, Greek, Hebrew, Norse, and Swedish include grades seven and eight. The grade level was not distinguished in the primary data source (American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages, 1928, p.363). dReported enrollments for 1958 in Chinese, Czech, Greek, Hawaiian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, and Swedish include enrollments in grades seven and eight. The primary data did not list seventh and eighth grade enrollments individually for each of these languages. Rather, its summary table listed total enrollment figures for select languages and an “other” languages category by grades 9–12 and grades 7–8 (Childers, 1960). The enrollments in the “other” languages category in Appendix A, therefore, reflect only grades 9–12 while the individual enrollments in this appendix (Appendix C) for 1958 include enrollments in grades 7–12 for these mentioned languages. eThe 1982 primary data source (ACTFL, 1984) included enrollments for all grades 7–12 in the following languages: Arabic, Chinese, Czech, Greek, Hawaiian, Hebrew, Polish, Portuguese, and “other” languages. The totals for each of these languages might include enrollments in seventh and eighth grade. fEnrollments in Greek include both ancient and modern Greek. These languages were collapsed into one category in many of the enrollment surveys. This generic category has been reproduced in this appendix. Please consult the primary data for individual languages. gRevised 1962 enrollment data for this language were reported in Eshelman and Dershem (1965). These revised figures are reported in the present appendix. hEnrollment data for 1959 were revised in the 1960 enrollment report (Childers, 1962) for the following languages: Latin, French, German, Spanish, and Russian. Total enrollments in “other” languages and for all foreign languages is different from the MLA and ACTFL survey series. This situation might be due to the fact that the enrollments for Russian, which were revised in the 1960 enrollment report (Childers, 1962) from 7,533to 7,513, were inadvertently changed to 7,055 in the 1976 enrollment report (ACTFL, 1980). This error has persisted in subsequent enrollment summary tables since this time and has been corrected in the present appendix. iFor 1960, total enrollments in “other” languages and for all foreign languages are different from the MLA and ACTFL survey series. This situation might be due to the fact that the enrollments for Russian, reported as 9,607 in 1960, were inadvertently changed to 9,722 in the summary table included in

< previous page

page_170

next page >

< previous page

page_171

next page >

Page 171 the 1968 survey report (Kant, 1970). This error has persisted in subsequent enrollment summary tables since this time and has been corrected in the present appendix. Note: The data reported for 1890–1948 in the MLA and ACTFL survey series listed spring enrollment dates rather than fall dates. These have been corrected in Appendix C to be consistent with the fall dates reported from 1958–2000. Sources: American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages. Enrollment in the Foreign Languages in Secondary Schools and Colleges in the United States 4. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1928. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1982.” Foreign Language Annals 17, no. 6, (1984): 611–623. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1958.Contract OEC-SAF-8342. New York: Modern Language Association, August 8, 1960. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1959.Report Number NDEA-VI-1-2. New York: Modern Language Association, November 1961. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1960. Report Number v77 n4 pt2. New York: Modern Language Association, September 1962. Dandonoli, P. “Report on Foreign Language Enrollment in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1985.” Foreign Language Annals 20, no. 5, (1987): 457–470. Dershem, J. F. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Fall 1964.Report Number MQG42674, Bureau Number BR-5-1277), Contract OEC-5-14-035. New York: Modern Language Association, May 1, 1966. Draper, J. B. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1989 and Fall 1990. Contract PO17A00043. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, October 1991. Draper, J. B., and J. H. Hicks. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1994.” Foreign Language Annals 29, no. 3, (1996): 303–306. Draper, J. B., and J. H. Hicks. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Schools, Fall 2000. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, May 2002. Eshelman, J. N., and J. F. Dershem. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1963. Report Number NDEA-VI-22, Contract OEC-4-14-037. New York: Modern Language Association, January 31, 1965.

< previous page

page_171

next page >

< previous page

page_172

next page >

Page 172 Hammond, S. B., and C. E. Scebold. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1978. Grant G007901693. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, October 1980. Jessen, C. A., and L. B. Herlihy. Offerings and Registrations in High-School Subjects 1933–1934. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1938. Kant, J. G. “Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1968.” Foreign Language Annals 3, no. 3, (1970): 400–458. Rice, M. C., R. C. Story, J. D. Hull, and G. S. Wright. “Offerings and Enrollments in High-School Subjects. ” Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1948–1950 . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, (1951): 1–118. Scebold, C. E. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1970. Bureau Number BR-1-1012, Contract OEC-0-71-2404-823. New York: Modern Language Association, June 1973. Scebold, C. E. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1974.Contract OEC-0-74-3411. New York: Modern Language Association, December 1976. Scebold, C. E., H. F. Egan, and S. B. Hammond. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1976. Grant G000-77-00391. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1980. Teague, C., and H. Rutimann. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1965.Report Number BR-5-1092, Contract OEC-6-14-015. New York: Modern Language Association, September 1, 1967. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 1998. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 98-013, 1998. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1998. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 1999-036, 1999a. U.S. Department of the Interior. Biennial Survey of Education 1921–1922. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1924. U.S. Department of the Interior.. Biennial Survey of Education 1926–1928. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1890–1891 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894a.

< previous page

page_172

next page >

< previous page

page_173

next page >

Page 173 U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1891–1892 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894b. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1892–1893 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1895. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1893–1894 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1896. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1895–1896 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1897. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1896–1897 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1898. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1897–1898 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1899. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1898–1899 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1900–1901 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1902. U.S. Office of Education.Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1902 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1903. U.S. Office of Education.Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1904 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1906. U.S. Office of Education.Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1907. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1906 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ended June, 30, 1910. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1911. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1917 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1917.

< previous page

page_173

next page >

< previous page

page_174

next page >

page_174

next page >

Page 174 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_175

next page >

Page 175 D Enrollments in Public High School, Grades 9–12, in Latin, Modern Languages (French, German, and Spanish), and Other Languages: 1889–2000 Year Latin Modern Languages Other Total 1889 70,411 33,196 6,202 109,809 % 64.1 30.2 5.7 100.0 1890 87,006 45,706 6,484 139,196 % 62.5 32.8 4.7 100.0 1891 93,144 37,409 7,397 137,950 % 67.5 27.1 5.4 100.0 1892 100,319 42,719 7,922 150,960 % 66.5 28.2 5.3 100.0 1893 129,524 53,758 9,633 192,915 % 67.1 27.9 5.0 100.0 1894 153,950 64,714 10,859 227,523 % 67.7 27.5 4.8 100.0 1895 175,715 72,267 11,821 259,803 % 67.6 27.8 4.6 100.0 1896 198,014 78,970 12,810 289,794 % 68.3 27.3 4.4 100.0 1897 223,307 93,494 14,021 330,822 % 67.5 28.3 4.2 100.0

< previous page

page_175

next page >

< previous page Page 176 Year 1898 % 1899 % 1900 % 1901 % 1902 % 1903 % 1904 % 1905 % 1909 % 1914 % 1921 % 1924 % 1927 % 1933 % 1948 % 1958 % 1959 % 1960 %

next page >

page_176

Latin 239,981 66.8 262,767 67.0 273,314 65.7 275,674 64.7 297,925 64.1 323,028 63.4 341,248 61.9 363,091 61.8 362,548 58.4 434,925 50.8 593,086 50.0 561,982 48.1 636,592 46.3 721,320 44.8 422,304 35.7 617,500 32.4 639,776 29.0 654,670 26.0

Modern Languages 104,523 29.1 114,803 29.2 128,591 30.9 136,895 32.1 154,921 33.3 175,493 33.9 199,781 36.3 215,389 36.7 253,164 40.7 418,553 48.8 589,795 49.8 603,636 51.7 732,826 53.4 875,711 54.3 742,335 62.8 1,263,847 66.3 1,529,580 69.4 1,828,577 72.4

< previous page

page_176

Other 14,858 4.1 14,813 3.8 14,232 3.4 13,780 3.2 12,033 2.6 11,158 2.2 10,002 1.8 8,886 1.5 5,511 0.9 3,351 0.4 2,234 0.2 3,096 0.2 4,036 0.3 14,713 0.9 18,243 1.5 25,189 1.3 35,535 1.6 39,003 1.6

Total 359,362 100.0 392,383 100.0 416,137 100.0 426,349 100.0 464,879 100.0 509,679 100.0 551,031 100.0 587,366 100.0 621,223 100.0 856,829 100.0 1,185,115 100.0 1,168,714 100.0 1,373,454 100.0 1,611,744 100.0 1,182,882 100.0 1,906,536 100.0 2,204,891 100.0 2,522,250 100.0

next page >

< previous page

page_177

next page >

Page 177 Year Latin Modern Languages Other Total 1961 695,297 2,147,632 44,658 2,887,587 % 24.1 74.4 1.5 100.0 1962 702,135 2,346,204 45,098 3,093,437 % 22.7 75.8 1.5 100.0 1963 680,234 2,727,580 54,120 3,461,934 % 19.7 78.7 1.6 100.0 1964 590,047 2,843,435 55,285 3,488,767 % 16.9 81.5 1.6 100.0 1965 591,445 3,006,223 62,639 3,660,307 % 16.2 82.1 1.7 100.0 1968 371,977 3,449,330 79,974 3,901,281 % 9.5 88.4 2.1 100.0 1970 265,293 3,451,996 62,243 3,779,532 % 7.0 91.3 1.7 100.0 1974 167,165 3,048,898 79,125 3,295,188 % 5.1 92.5 2.4 100.0 1976 150,470 2,958,064 63,078 3,171,612 % 4.7 93.3 2.0 100.0 1978 j151,794 2,857,014 71,115 3,079,923 % 4.9 92.8 2.3 100.0 1932 169,580 2,687,674 98,780 2,956,034 % 5.7 91.0 3.3 100.0 1985 176,841 3,780,291 56,568 4,013,700 % 4.4 94.2 1.4 100.0 1990 163,923 3,996,120 96,882 4,256,925 % 3.9 93.8 2.3 100.0 1994 188,833 4,651,596 161,381 5,001,810 % 3.8 93.0 3.2 100.0 2000 n 177,477 5,416,330 304,331 5,898,138 % 3.0 91.8 5.2 100.0 Notes : The category “modern languages” is represented by the following three languages: French, German, and Spanish. These three languages and Latin comprise at least 94.3 percent of the total enrollments in any given year from 1889 to 1994. They are consistently the top four enrolling languages during this 105-year period. “Other” foreign languages from 1889 to 1914 consisted of classical Greek enrollments exclusively.

< previous page

page_177

next page >

< previous page

page_178

next page >

Page 178 Refer to Appendices A, B and C for additional notes regarding the enrollment figures for each year. Sources : American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages. Enrollment in the Foreign Languages in Secondary Schools and Colleges in the United States 4. New York,: The Macmillan Company, 1928. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1982.” Foreign Language Annals 17, no. 6, (1984): 611–623. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1958. Contract OEC-SAF-8342. New York: Modern Language Association, August 8, 1960. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1959. Report Number NDEA-VI-1-2. New York: Modern Language Association, November 1961. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1960. Report Number v77 n4 pt2. New York: Modern Language Association, September 1962. Dandonoli, P. “Report on Foreign Language Enrollment in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1985.” Foreign Language Annals 20, no. 5, (1987): 457–470. Dershem, J. F. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Fall 1964. Report Number MQG42674, Bureau Number BR-5-1277), Contract OEC-5-14-035. New York: Modern Language Association, May 1, 1966. Draper, J. B. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1989 and Fall 1990. Contract PO17A00043. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, October 1991. Draper, J. B., and J. H. Hicks. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1994.” Foreign Language Annals 29, no. 3, (1996): 303–306. Draper, J. B., and J. H. Hicks. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Schools, Fall 2000. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, May 2002. Dershem, J. F. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Fall 1964. Report Number MQG42674, Bureau Number BR-5-1277), Contract OEC-5-14-035. New York: Modern Language Association, May 1, 1966. Eshelman, J. N., and J. F. Dershem. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1963. Report Number NDEA-VI-22, Contract OEC-4-14-037. New York: Modern Language Association, January 31, 1965. Hammond, S. B., and C. E. Scebold. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1978. Grant G007901693. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, October 1980. Jessen, C. A., and L. B. Herlihy. O fferings and Registrations in High-School Subjects 1933–1934. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1938. Kant, J. G. “Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1968.” Foreign Language Annals 3, no. 3, (1970): 400–458. Rice, M. C., R. C. Story, J. D. Hull, and G. S. Wright. “Offerings and Enrollments in High-School Subjects.” Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1948–1950. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, (1951).

< previous page

page_178

next page >

< previous page

page_179

next page >

Page 179 Scebold, C. E. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1970. Bureau Number BR-1-1012, Contract OEC-0-71-2404-823. New York: Modern Language Association, June 1973. Scebold, C. E. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1974. Contract OEC-0-74-3411. New York: Modern Language Association, December 1976. Scebold, C. E., H. F. Egan, and S. B. Hammond. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1976. Grant G000-77-00391. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1980. Teague, C., and H. Rutimann. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1965. Report Number BR-5-1092, Contract OEC-6-14-015. New York: Modern Language Association, September 1, 1967. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 1998. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 98-013, 1998. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1998. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 1999-036, 1999a. U.S. Department of the Interior. Biennial Survey of Education 1921–1922. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1924. U.S. Department of the Interior. Biennial Survey of Education 1926–1928. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1890–1891 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894a. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1891–1892 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894b. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1892–1893 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1895. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1893–1894 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1896. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1895–1896 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1897. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1896–1897 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1898. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1897–1898 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1899. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1898–1899 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1900–1901 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1902. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1902 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1903.

< previous page

page_179

next page >

< previous page

page_180

Page 180 U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1906. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1907. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1911. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1917.

< previous page

page_180

next page > for the Year Ending June 30, 1904 2. for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 2. for the Year Ending June 30, 1906 2. for the Year Ended June, 30, 1910. for the Year Ending June 30, 1917 2.

next page >

< previous page

Page 181 E Enrollments by Level in Public High Schools: 1905–2000 1905a Levels I II III French N 27,492 16,623 11,508 % 43.0 26.0 18.0 German N 65,125 39,378 27,263 % 43.0 26.0 18.0 Latin N 156,129 94,404 65,356 % 43.0 26.0 18.0 Spanish N — — — % — — — All N 248,746 150,405 104,127 % 43.0 26.0 18.0 Beginning Level Advanced Level All N 399,151 179,329 % 69.0 31.0

< previous page

next page >

page_181

page_181

IV

V VIIAP

Total

— —

— —

63,935 100.0

19,688 — 13.0 —

— —

151,454 100.0

47,202 — 13.0 —

— —

363,091 100.0

— —

— —

— —

75,202 — 13.0 —

— —

578,480 100.0 Total

8,312 13.0

— —

578,480 100.0

next page >

< previous page Page 182 1924 Levels French N % German N % Latin N % Spanish N % All N % All N % 1933 Levels French N % German N % Latin N % Spanish N %

next page >

page_182

I

II

III

IV

173,685 52.3

116,205 35.0

36,721 11.1

5,289 1.6

—

—

331,900

19,615 60.4

10,282 31.7

2,381 7.3

187 0.6

—

—

32,465

295,706 52.6

185,299 33.0

55,398 9.9

25,579 — 4.6

—

561,982

137,068 57.3

81,256 34.0

17,850 7.5

3,097 1.3

—

239,271

626,074 43.0 Beginning Level

393,042 27.0

112,350 7.7 Advanced Level

34,152 2.3

1,019,116 87.4

V VIIAP

—

Total

1,457,618

Total

146,502 12.6

1,165,618

I

II

III

IV

V

VIIAP

Total

228,871 51.7

162,194 36.7

44,070 10.0

7,209 1.6

— —

— —

442,344 100.0

55,105 58.6

32,058 34.1

6,270 6.7

648 0.7

— —

— —

94,081 100.0

329,879 51.2

241,572 37.5

51,007 7.9

22,304 3.5

— —

— —

644,762 100.0

147,768 58.5

86,081 34.1

15,781 6.3

3,040 1.2

— —

— —

252,670 100.0

< previous page

page_182

next page >

< previous page

Page 183 1933 Levels All N 761,623 521,905 117,128 % 53.1 36.4 8.2 Beginning Level Advanced Level All N 1,283,528 150,329 % 89.5 10.5 1948 Levels I II III French N 134,274 90,684 25,305 % 52.6 35.5 9.9 German N 22,613 16,384 3,640 % 52.6 38.1 8.5 Latin N 236,118 1 55,994 22,867 % 55.9 36.9 5.4 Spanish N 253,527 156,180 28,588 % 57.2 35.2 6.4 All N 646,532 419,242 80,400 % 55.5 36.0 6.9 Beginning Level Advanced Level All N 1,065,774 98,424 % 91.5 8.5 1963 Levels I II III IV French N 560,012 386,159 142,609 38,679 % 49.5 34.2 12.6 3.4

< previous page

next page >

page_183

page_183

33,201 2.3

— — — —

1,433,857 100.0 Total 1,433,857 100.0

IV

V VIIAP

Total

5,020 2.0

—

—

255,283 100.0

388 0.9

—

—

43,025 100.0

7,325 1.7

—

—

422,304 100.0

5,291 1.2

—

—

443,586 100.0

18,024 1.6

1,164,198 100.0 Total 1,164,198 100.0

V

VIIAP

Total

2,743 0.2

346 b0.0

1,130,548 100.0

next page >

< previous page Page 184 German N % Latin N % Spanish N % All N % All N % 1978 Levels French n % German n % Latin n % Spanish n % All n % All n %

next page >

page_184

132,229 50.8

88,226 33.9

30,780 11.8

7,981 3.1

364,171 53.6

254,024 37.4

46,052 6.8

14,725 2.2

727,996 54.5

438,446 32.8

131,542 9.9

35,965 2.7

1,602 295 0.1 e0.0

1,335,846 100.0

1,784,406 52.4 Beginning Level

1,166,855 34.3 Advanced Level

350,983 10.3

97,350 2.9

6,217 0.2

3,406,680 100.0 Total

2,951,263 86.6

1,175 89 0.5 c0.0 697 0.1

137 d0.0

867 f0.0

455,417 13.4

260,480 100.0 679,806 100.0

3,406,680 100.0

I

II

III

IV

400,764 46.8

271,305 31.7

124,564 14.6

47,269 5.5

158.000 47.8

105,447 31.9

48,072 14.5

16,940 5.1

1,754 0.5

424 0.1

330,637 100.0

89,459 58.9

46,002 30.3

11,879 7.8

3,775 2.5

631 0.4

48 0.03

151,794 100.0

883,884 52.9

514,609 30.8

190,711 11.4

63,434 3.8

14,203 3,534 0.9 0.2

1,670,375 100.0

1,532,107 50.9 Beginning Level

937,363 31.2

375,226 12.5 Advanced Level

131,418 4.4

26,822 5,872 0.9 0.2

3,008,808 100.0 Total

2,469,470 82.1

< previous page

V

VIIAP

10,234 1,866 1.2 0.2

Total 856,002 100.0

539,338 17.9

3,008,808 100.0

page_184

next page >

< previous page Page 185 1985 Levels French n % German n % Latin n % Spanish n % All n %

I

II

III

IV

V

VIIAP

Total

385,166 48.0

261,212 32.6

99,039 12.4

44,866 5.6

8,369 1.0

3,316 0.4

801,968 100.0

99,062 46.4

69,777 32.7

28,562 13.4

13,484 6.3

1,994 0.9

709 0.3

213,588 100.0

71,370 55.2

40,414 31.2

12,473 9.6

4,303 3.3

713 0.6

55 0.004

129,328 100.0

846,330 50.2

554,630 32.9

179,779 10.7

84,342 5.0

14,802 5,351 0.9 0.3

1,685,234 100.0

1,401,928 49.5 Beginning Level

926,033 32.7

319,853 11.3 Advanced Level

146,995 5.2

25,878 9,431 0.9 0.3

2,830,118 100.0 Total

All n % 1994 Levels French n % German n % Latin n % Spanish n %

next page >

page_185

2,327,961 82.3

502,157 17.7

2,830,118 100.0

I

II

III

IV

V

VIIAP

Total

246,266 40.8

205,362 34.0

96,216 15.9

39,415 6.5

8,962 1.5

8,037 1.3

604,258a 100.0

82,611 42.1

64,546 32.9

30,844 15.7

14,158 7.2

1,975 1.0

1,918 1.0

196,052 100.0

59,088 49.4

39,086 32.6

14,324 12.0

4,677 3.9

859 0.7

1,692 1.4

119,726 100.0

869,271 47.7

619,123 33.9

228,109 12.5

74,684 4.1

15,523 0.9

17,440 1.0

1,824,150 100.0

< previous page

page_185

next page >

< previous page

page_186

next page >

Page 186 All n 1,257,236 928,117 369,493 132,934 27,319 29,087 2,744,186 % 45.8 33.8 13.5 4.8 1.0 1.1 100.0 Beginning Level Advanced Level Total All n 2,185,353 558,833 2,744,186 % 79.6 20.4 100.0 2000 Levels I II III IV V VIIAP Total French n 199,980 143,524 68,570 27,377 5,983 8,486 453,920 % 44.1 31.6 15.1 6.0 1.3 1.9 100.0 German n 61,113 44,014 22,836 10,448 1,693 2,237 142,341 % 42.3 30.9 16.0 7.3 1.2 1.6 100.0 Latin n 43,463 25,395 9,732 3,099 695 1,479 83,863 % 51.8 30.3 11.6 3.7 0.8 1.8 100.0 Spanish n 796,930 565,818 234,320 74,309 17,801 40,436 1,729,614 % 46.1 32.7 13.6 4.3 1.0 2.3 100.0 All n 1,101,486 778,751 335,458 115,233 26,172 52,638 2,409,738 % 45.7 32.3 13.9 4.8 1.1 2.2 100.0 Beginning Level Advanced Level Total All n 1,880,237 529,546 2,409,738 % 78.0 22.0 100.0 aConsult the introduction to the appendices for a description of the estimate procedures used to obtain the 1905 enrollments by level. bLess than 0.0 percent—actual percentage is 0.03 for level VI/AP cLess than 0.0 percent—actual percentage is 0.0045 for level V and 0.03 for level VI/AP dLess than 0.0 percent—actual percentage is 0.02 for level VI/AP eLess than 0.0 percent—actual percentage is 0.02 for level VI/AP fLess than 0.0 percent—actual percentage is 0.03 for level VI/AP Notes : Percentages for each year might exceed %100.0 due to rounding.

< previous page

page_186

next page >

< previous page

page_187

next page >

Page 187 Enrollments that could not be categorized by level were collected for each year. These were not included in the breakdown of data by level in the appendix. Please consult the primary sources for information on these data. For the 1905–1906 school year, French, German, and Latin accounted for 98.5 percent of the total enrollments. Enrollments were not reported for Spanish in this year. For the 1924–1925 school year, these four foreign languages accounted for 99.8 percent of the total enrollments. Enrollments by level were represented by year of study (first through fourth) in grades 9– 12 for each language in the primary data source (American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages, pp. 321–322, 1928). For the 1933–1934 school year, these four foreign languages accounted for 99.1 percent of the total enrollments. Enrollments by levels were represented by enrollments in grades 9–12 in the primary data source. The following enrollments were undesignated by level for each foreign language: 40,124 (French), 57,186 (Latin), 11,586 (German), and 20,838 (Spanish) (Jessen and Herlihy,1938). These were not included in this table. For the 1948–1949 school year, these four foreign languages accounted for 98.4 percent of the total enrollments. Enrollments in level IV German were found in auxiliary Table 4 in the primary data source (Rice, Story, Hull, and Wright, 1951, p. 91). For the 1963–1964 school year, these four foreign languages accounted for 98.5 percent of the total enrollments. For the 1978–1979 school year, these four foreign languages accounted for 97.6 percent of the total enrollments. For the 1985–1986 school year, these four foreign languages accounted for 98.6 percent of the total enrollments. For the 1994–1995 school year, these four foreign languages comprise 96.8 percent of the total enrollments. For the 2000–2001 school year, these four foreign languages comprise 94.8% of the total enrollments. Sources : American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages. Enrollments in the Foreign Languages in Secondary Schools and Colleges in the United States 4. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1928. Dandonoli, P. “Report on Foreign Language Enrollment in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1985.” Foreign Language Annals 20, no. 5, (1987): 457–470. Draper, J. B. and Hicks, J. H. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1994.” Foreign Language Annals 29, no. 3, (1996): 303–306. Draper, J. B., and J. H. Hicks. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Schools, Fall 2000. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, May 2002. Eshelman, J. N., and J. F. Dershem. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1963. Report Number NDEA-VI-22, Contract OEC-4-14-037. New York: Modern Language Association, January 31, 1965. Hammond, S. B., and C. E. Scebold. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1978. Grant G007901693. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, October 1980. Jessen, C. A., and L. B. Herlihy. Offerings and Registrations in High-School Subjects 1933–1934. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1938.

< previous page

page_187

next page >

< previous page

page_188

next page >

Page 188 Rice, M. C., R. C. Story, J. D. Hull, and G. S. Wright. “Offerings and Enrollments in High-School Subjects.” Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1948–1950. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, (1951): 1–118. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1906 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908.

< previous page

page_188

next page >

< previous page

page_189

next page >

Page 189 F Percentage of Total Public High School Population Enrolled in Specified Courses by Subject Area: 1890–1982

< previous page

page_189

next page >

< previous page

page_190

Page 190 Percentage Enrolled Subject Biology Botany Chemistry Earth science General science Physiology Physics Zoology Other courses Sciences total Algebra General math Geometry Trigonometry Other courses Mathematics total Civil government

by Year 1890 1900 1910 1915 1922 — — — 1.1 6.9 — — 15.8 9.1 3.8 10.1 7.7 6.9 7.4 7.4 — 29.8 21.0 15.3 4.5 — — — — 18.3 — 27.4 15.3 9.5 5.1 22.8 19.0 14.6 14.2 8.9 — — 6.9 3.2 1.5 — — — — — 32.9 83.9 80.5 59.8 56.4 45.4 56.3 56.9 48.8 40.2 — — — — 12.4 21.3 27.4 30.9 26.5 22.7 — 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.5 — — — — — 66.7 85.6 89.7 76.8 76.8 — b21.7 b15.6 b15.7 b19.3

< previous page

page_190

next page > 1928 8.8 1.6 7.1 2.8 17.5 2.7 6.8 0.8 — 48.1 35.2 7.9 19.8 1.3 — 64.2 6.6

1934 13.6 0.9 7.6 1.7 17.8 1.8 6.3 0.6 — 50.3 30.4 7.4 17.1 1.3 — 56.2 6.0

1949 14.6 0.1 7.6 0.4 20.8 1.0 5.4 0.1 — 50.0 26.8 13.1 12.8 2.0 — 54.7 8.0

1962 d1973 21.6 17.7 0.1 0.4 9.1 8.7 0.9 3.6 22.2 5.3 0.8 0.9 4.9 2.9 0.1 0.5 — 11.2 59.7 51.2 28.6 24.5 17.4 13.8 16.2 11.6 3.0 1.4 — 4.0 65.2 55.3 9.5 8.6

d1982 22.7 0.5 9.9 0.2 14.5 1.2 8.5 0.4 7.5 65.4 31.4 21.7 11.4 1.6 11.7 77.8 10.9

next page >

< previous page Page 191 Subject Economics English history Community government Consumer education Geography Problems of democracy Psychology Sociology U.S. history World history Other courses Social studies total English Journalism Radio and broadcasting Speech and speaking Other courses Language arts total

< previous page

next page >

page_191 1890 — a— b— — — — — — a27.3 — — 27.3 — — — — — 27.3

1900 — a— b— — — — 2.4 — a33.2 — — 62.3 38.5 — — — — 38.5

1910 — a— b— — — — 1.0 — a55.0 — — 71.6 57.1 — — — — 57.1

1915 — a— b— — — — 1.2 — a50.5 — — 67.4 58.4 — — — — 58.4

1922 4.8 2.9 b— — — — 0.9 2.4 15.3 — — 45.6 76.7 0.1 — — — 76.8

page_191

1928 5.1 0.9 13.4 — 0.3 1.0 1.0 2.7 17.9 6.1 — 55.0 93.1 0.2 — — — 93.3

1934 4.9 0.5 10.4 — 2.1 3.5 0.3 2.5 17.3 11.9 — 59.4 90.5 0.7 — — — 91.2

1949 4.7 na b— 0.7 5.6 5.2 0.9 3.4 22.8 16.2 — 67.5 92.9 1.9 0.1 — — 94.9

1962 d1973 d1982 3.6 3.5 4.6 c0.0 — — 8.9 2.4 5.5 — 0.7 1.7 7.2 5.2 5.3 4.6 2.5 0.3 1.7 5.0 5.2 3.5 5.1 13.0 24.2 22.3 13.8 17.9 5.5 13.5 — 37.0 44.7 81.1 97.8 118.5 94.6 73.5 75.0 1.7 2.5 3.2 — 1.1 2.3 5.5 4.9 1.5 — 49.1 57.9 101.8 131.1 139.9

next page >

< previous page Page 192 Subject Latin French German Spanish Other languages Foreign language total Bookkeeping Business arithmetic Business English Business law Coop. Office training Coop. Store training Economic geography Office practice General business training Retailing Sales and advertising Shorthand

< previous page

next page >

page_192 1890 34.7 5.8 10.5 — — 51.0 — — — — — — — — — — — —

1900 50.6 7.8 14.3 — — 72.7 — — — — — — — — — — — —

1910 49.0 9.9 23.7 0.7 — 83.3 — — — — — — — — — — — —

1915 37.3 8.8 24.4 2.7 — 73.2 3.4 — — — — — — — — — — —

1922 27.5 15.5 0.6 11.3 — 54.9 12.6 1.5 0.9 — — 1.7 0.4 — — 0.3 8.9

page_192

1928 22.0 14.0 1.8 9.4 0.1 47.3 10.7 6.9 0.5 2.6 — — 4.8 1.5 3.0 — 0.4 8.7

1934 1949 1962 d1973 d1982 16.0 7.8 7.8 1.5 1.1 10.9 4.7 8.0 7.6 6.6 2.4 0.8 1.7 3.1 2.1 6.2 8.2 9.8 12.4 12.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.2 35.7 21.8 27.6 25.6 23.3 9.9 8.7 7.7 4.4 1.8 4.9 4.6 — 2.8 — 0.9 1.0 — — — 3.2 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.9 — 0.4 — — — — 0.3 — — — 4.0 1.7 — — — 1.8 2.0 2.3 1.3 0.1 6.2 5.2 5.6 3.9 5.2 — 0.5 — 0.4 0.9 0.7 1.0 — 0.4 0.2 9.0 7.8 6.7 4.6 3.1

next page >

< previous page

page_193

next page >

Page 193 Subject 1890 1900 1910 1915 1922 1928 1934 1949 1962 d1973 d1982 Typewriting — — — — 13.1 15.2 16.7 22.5 23.1 10.3 21.0 Other courses — — — — — — — — — 18.1 12.4 Business total — — — 3.4 39.4 54.3 57.3 58.1 47.4 48.1 46.6 Agriculture — — 4.7 7.2 5.1 3.7 3.6 6.7 6.2 2.7 3.3 Industrial subjects — — — 11.2 13.7 13.5 21.0 26.6 28.0 28.9 38.3 Home economics — — 3.8 12.9 14.3 16.5 16.7 24.2 23.1 20.4 23.9 Art — — — 22.9 14.7 11.7 8.7 9.0 19.3 17.9 24.2 Music — — — 31.5 25.3 26.0 25.5 30.1 28.0 25.1 21.6 Physical education — — — — 5.7 15.0 50.7 69.4 73.7 72.5 93.7 Extracurricular total — — 3.8 67.3 60.0 69.2 101.6 132.7 144.1 135.9 163.4 aFor the years 1890–1915, U.S. and English history enrollments were combined. These percentages also include enrollments in ancient history and medieval and modern history for these years bfor the years 1900–1922, civil government and community government enrollments were combined. For the year 1949, enrollment data was collected only for civil government. cLess than 1 percent of students enrolled in this course nationally. dCourse offerings and enrollment data for the 1972–1973 and 1981–1982 school years have been adapted to fit course categories used in previous years. Numerous additional courses were recorded for this school year, revealing a broader range of course taking within individual subject areas than in previous surveys. The “other courses” category includes these courses and might partially explain growth for the composite subject area. The reader is urged to consult the primary data source (West, Diodato, and Sandberg, 1984) for detailed information. Notes : “Public high schools students” covers the last four years of education. Percentages for foreign languages in this table differ from those in Appendix A due to differences in the data collection procedures.

< previous page

page_193

next page >

< previous page

page_194

next page >

Page 194 Total percentages for a given year exceed 100.0 percent because of multiple course taking in subject areas. Sources : Data from 1890 to 1949 adapted from Table 7 in Rice, M. C., R. C. Story, J. D. Hull, and G. S. Wright. “Offerings and Enrollments in High-School Subjects.” Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1948–1950. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, (1951): 1–118. Data for 1962 adapted from Table 7 in Wright, G. S. Subject Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Data for 1973 and 1982 adapted from Table 1 in West, J., L. Diodato, and N. Sandberg. A Trend Study of High School Offerings and Enrollments: 1972–1973 and 1981–82.. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 84-224, 1984.

< previous page

page_194

next page >

< previous page

page_195

next page >

Page 195 G Comparison of Foreign Language Mandates by Level, Type, and State Opportunity Mandates Seat-Time Mandates Secondary School All Grades All Grades California Kentuckyc “As Elective AP Test for Commonwealth Diploma” Connecticut New York “Required for Regent’s Diploma” Delaware WestVirginiad “Elective Choice” Iowa Idaho Michigana Minnesota New Hampshireb North Carolina New York Pennsylvania Wisconsin Utah

< previous page

page_195

next page >

< previous page Page 196

Opportunity Mandates Secondary school 3 Years Kentucky Maryland New Hampshireb Ohiob Vermont Virginia 3 years 2 years Alabama Arkansas Georgia Hawaii Illinois Indiana Kansas Maine

< previous page

page_196

next page >

Seat-Time Mandates 3 Years Delawaree “As Elective in Career Pathway” Indianaf “Required for Academic Honors Diploma” Louisiana “Required for Regents Diploma” Maryland “Required for Certificate of Merit” North Dakota “As Elective in Place of Upper-Level English” Oklahomag “As Electives in College Preparatory Diploma” South Carolina “Required for College Preparatory Diploma” 3 years Texas “All Students” Virginiah “Required for Advanced Studies Diploma” 2 years Alabama “Required for Advanced Diploma” Georgia “Required for College-bound Diploma” Hawaii “Required for Recognition Diploma” Indianac “Required for Academic Honors Diploma” New York “All Students” North Carolina “Required for Academic Scholars Diploma” Rhode Island “Required for College Preparatory Diploma” South Carolina “Required for Technical or Dual Path Diploma”

page_196

next page >

< previous page Page 197

Secondary school

Middle/Junior high school

Middle/junior

< previous page

page_197 Opportunity Mandates 2 years Missouri Montana Nebraska Ohiob Oklahoma Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas West Virginia Washington, D.C. 1 year

All grades California Michigana Minnesota Montana New York North Carolina Wisconsin 1 year Virginia

next page >

Seat-Time Mandates 2 years Tennessee “Required for College Preparatory” Washington, D.C. “All Students”

1 year Californiag “Elective Choice” Illinoisg “Elective Choice” Oregong “Elective Choice” All grades Louisiana Oklahoma

1 year

page_197

next page >

< previous page Page 198

page_198

next page >

Seat-Time Mandates Elementary School All Grades Arkansas Louisiana North Carolina Oklahoma aMichigan offers school districts $10 per pupil funding for K–12 foreign language education. bSecondary schools in New Hampshire of fewer than 300 students must offer four years of one foreign language. Larger schools must offer at least three years of two foreign languages. Ohio offers this option for high schools of any size. cHigh school students in Kentucky must complete one AP test in three of four areas (math, science, foreign language, and English) for the Commonwealth Diploma. dHigh school students in West Virginia must complete a total of eight electives using a combination of courses in applied arts, fine or performing arts, and foreign language. eBeginning in the year 2000, Delaware high school students will be required to complete three credits in a “Career Pathway” sequence designed to provide knowledge and skills in a particular skill area. This coursework might include visual or performing arts and a combination of foreign language and vocational/technical courses. fHigh school students in Indiana can complete three years of one foreign language or two years of two foreign languages to receive the Academic Honors Diploma. gStudents in Oklahoma must complete a total of three years using combinations of foreign language, computer science, English, mathematics, history, sociology, science, speech, or psychology. Students in California must complete either one year of fine arts or a foreign language. Students in Illinois can complete one year of foreign language, art, or music. Students in Oregon can complete one year of foreign language or applied arts. As of the 2001–2002 school year, all Oregon students will be required to complete two years of foreign language and pass a proficiency test of a level to be determined by individual school districts. hHigh school students in Virginia can complete three years of one foreign language or two years of two foreign languages to receive the Advanced Studies Diploma. Note: Overlap exists between the middle/junior high school grades and elementary and secondary school levels between states. Requirements reflect the specific language of each state and do not reflect grade variation at this level. Sources : Adapted from the following: National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages.” Foreign Language Programs and the Middle School of the Nineties.” Foreign Language Annals 27, no. 1,(1994): 59–68. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1998. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 1999-036, 1999, 159–166, Table 154.

< previous page

Opportunity Mandates All Grades Michigana Montana

page_198

next page >

< previous page

page_199

next page >

Page 199 Bibliography Adelman, C. “The Empirical Evidence of Foreign Language Study.” The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science . Foreign Language Policy: An Agenda for Change 532 (March 1994): 59– 73. Alkonis, N. V., and M. A. Brophy. “A Survey of FLES Practices.” Reports of Surveys and Studies in the Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages, 1959–1961 . New York: Modern Language Association of America, (1961). American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages. Enrollment in the Foreign Lan guages in Secondary Schools and Colleges in the United States 4. New York: The Macmil lan Company, 1928. American Council on Education. What the High Schools Ought to Teach. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1940. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1982.” Foreign Language Annals 17, no. 6 (1984): 611–623. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K–12 Learners. Yonkers, NY: Author, 1998. Andersson, T. Foreign Languages in the Elementary School. A Struggle against Mediocrity . Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1969. Angus, D. L., and J. E. Mirel. “Rhetoric and Reality: The High School Curriculum.” Learn ing from the Past, edited by D. Ravitch and M. A. Vinovskis, 295–327. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. Angus, D. L., and J. E. Mirel. The Failed Promise of the American High School 1890–1995 . New York: Teachers College Press, 1999. Apple, M. “The Culture and Commerce of the Textbook.” Contemporary Curriculum Courses, edited by W. B. Pinar, 223–242. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick, 1988. Beckner, W., and J. D. Cornett. The Secondary School Curriculum, Content, and Structure. Scranton, PA: Intext Educational Publishers, 1972.

< previous page

page_199

next page >

< previous page

page_200

next page >

Page 200 Bernhardt, E. “Socio-Historical Perspectives on Language Teaching in the Modern United States.” Learning Foreign and Second Languages, edited by H. Byrnes, 39–57. New York: Modern Language Association, 1999. Bestor, A. Educational Wastelands: The Retreat from Learning in Our Public Schools. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1953. Board of Education of the City of Chicago. Directory of World Language Programs 2000. Chicago: Author, 2000. Brod, R., and B. J. Huber. “The MLA Survey of Foreign Language Entrance and Degree Requirements.” ADFL Bulletin 28, no. 1 (1996): 35–43. Brod, R., and B. J. Huber. “Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 1995.” ADFL Bulletin 28, no. 2 (1997): 55–61. Brown, H. D. Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy . White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2001. Brown, J. F. The American High School. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1909. Brown, J. F. The American High School. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916. Byrnes, H. Learning Foreign and Second Languages. New York: Modern Language Association, 1999. Chalhoub-Deville, M. “The Minnesota Articulation Project and Its Proficiency-Based Assessments.” Foreign Language Annals 30, no. 4 (1997): 492–502. Chicago Public Schools. Standards. Background Information. 1998. Online: http://www.cps.k12.il.us/Instruction/CAS/Background/background.html. Chicago Public Schools. Chicago Public Schools Office of Language and Cultural Education Programs. At a Glance . 1999a. Online: http://www.cps.k12.il.us/AboutCPS/Departments/LanguageCulture/At_A_Glance/at_a_glance.html. Chicago Public Schools. Expecting More in High School. 1999b. Online: http://www.cps.k12.il.us/Trending_Up/Supporting_Progress/Mount/mount.html. Chicago Public Schools. High School World Language Goals and Standards. First Year. Chicago: Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 1999c. Chicago Public Schools. Making a Case for CASE . 1999d. Online: http://www.cps.k12.il.us/AboutCPS/Departments/Communications/Chicago_Educator/Case_Exam/case_exam.html. Chicago Public Schools. CPS at a Glance . 2000. Online: http://www.cps.k12.il.us/CPS_at_a_Glance/cps_at_a_glance.html. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1958. Contract OECSAF-8342. New York: Modern Language Association, August 8, 1960. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1959. Report Number NDEA-VI-1–2. New York: Modern Language Association, November 1961. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1960. Report Number v77 n4 pt2. New York: Modern Language Association, September 1962. Childers, J. W. Foreign Language Teaching. New York: The Center for Applied Teaching, Inc., 1964. Clemens Johnson, H. G., M. C. Rice, and E. M. Foster. “Statistics of Higher Education: 1955–1956.” Biennial Survey of Education in the United States 1954–1956 I, Chapter 4, Section I. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958.

< previous page

page_200

next page >

< previous page

page_201

next page >

Page 201 Cohen, D. “What Standards for National Standards?” Phi Delta Kappan 76, no. 10 (1995): 751–757. Cole, R. D. Modern Foreign Languages and Their Teaching. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1931. Coleman, A. The Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages in the United States . New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929. Costi, Betsy, telephone conversation with author, 2 May 2000. Cummings, W. K., and N. F. Mcginn. International Handbook of Education and Development: Preparing Schools, Students, and Nations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Elsevier Science Ltd., 1997. Dandonoli, P. “Report on Foreign Language Enrollment in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1985.” Foreign Language Annals 20, no. 5 (1987): 457–470. Davis, J. N. “Educational Reform and the Babel (babble) of Culture: Prospects for the Standards for Foreign Language Learning.” The Modern Language Journal 80, no. 2 (1997): 151–163. Dershem, J. F. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Fall 1964. Report Number MQG42674, Bureau Number BR-5-1277, Contract OEC-5-14-035. New York: Modern Language Association, May 1, 1966. Dexter, E. G. A History of Education in the United States. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922. Douglass, H. R. Secondary Education for Life Adjustment of American Youth . New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1952. Draper, J. B. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1989 and Fall 1990. Contract PO17A00043. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, (October 1991). Draper, J. B., and J. H. Hicks. “Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1994.” Foreign Language Annals 29, no. 3 (1996): 303–306. Draper, J.B. and J.H. Hicks. Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Schools, Fall 2000. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, May 2002. Eisner, E. The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1985. Elmore, R. F. “The Origins and Problems of Education Reform in the United States,” International Handbook of Education and Development: Preparing Schools, Students and Nations for the Twenty-First Century, edited by W. K. Cummings and N. F. McGinn, 293–303. New York: Elsevier Science, Inc., 1997. Epstein, J., and D. MacIver. Opportunities to Learn. Effects on Eighth Graders of Curriculum Offerings and Instructional Approaches. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, 1992. Eshelman, J. N., and J. F. Dershem. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1963. Report Number NDEA-VI-22, Contract OEC-4-14-037. New York: Modern Language Association, January 31, 1965. Eshelman, J. N., and N. W. Lian. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Public Schools—Fall 1961 and Fall 1962 and Non-Public Schools—Fall 1962. Report Number NDEA-VI21, Contract OEC-2-14-033. New York: Modern Language Association, January 31, 1964. Farmer Kearns, J., H. L. Kleinert, S. Kennedy. “We Need Not Exclude Anyone.” Educational Leadership 56, no. 6 (1999): 33–38.

< previous page

page_201

next page >

< previous page

page_202

next page >

Page 202 Fife, R. H. A Summary of Reports on the Modern Foreign Languages. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1931. Finn, J. D. “Taking Foreign Languages in High School.” Foreign Language Annals 31, no. 3 (1998): 287– 306. Foreign Language Curriculum Framework and Criteria Committee. Draft Foreign Language Curriculum Framework K–12. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education, 1999. Gandal, M. Making Standards Matter: A Fifty-State Progress Report on Efforts to Raise Academic Standards . Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers, 1995. Garcia, Marco, telephone conversation with author, 20 April 2000. Garcia, Marco, telephone conversation with author, 28 April 2000. Glidden, H. Making Standards Matter 1998: Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers. 1998. Onlinee: http://www.aft.org/edissues/standards98/index.htm. Goals 2000: Educate America Act. H. R. 1804. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education, 1994. Grittner, F. M. “Toward a Solution of the Articulation Problem between High School and College.” German Studies in the United States. Assessment and Outlook, edited by W. F. W. Lohnes and V. Nollendorfs, 199–206. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1976. Gullette, Cameron C., Clark L. Keating, and Claude P. Viens. Teaching a Modern Language. New York: F. S. Crofts and Company, 1942. Guthrie, J. W., and J. E. Koppich. “The Relentless Nature of American Education Reform.” International Handbook of Education and Development: Preparing Schools, Students, and Nations for the Twenty-First Century, edited by W. K. Cummings and N. F. McGinn, 305–321. New York: Elsevier Science Ltd., 1997. Hammond, S. B., and C. E. Scebold. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1978. Grant G007901693. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, October 1980. Hancock, C. R., and C. E. Scebold. “Defining Moments in Foreign and Second Language Education in the Last Half of the Twentieth Century.” Reflecting on the Past to Shape the Future, edited by D. W. Birckbichler, 1–17. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1999. Handschin, C. H. Methods of Teaching Modern Languages. Yonkers, NY: World Book Company, 1923. Handschin, C. H. “Historical Aspects of Foreign Language Teaching.” Modern Language Teaching in the Postwar Reconstruction of Education, edited by J. B. Tharp, 46–52. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 1943. Hendrie, C. “N.Y. Students Must Master a Second Language.” Education Week 1, (November 26, 1997a): 13. Hendrie, C. “N.Y. Regents Drop Foreign-Language Requirement.” Education Week (December 3, 1997b): 3. Herron, C. “Who Should Study a Foreign Language? The Myth of Elitism.” Foreign Language Annals 15, no. 6 (1982): 441–449. Herman, D. M. “‘Our Patriotic Duty’: Insights from Professional History, 1890–1920.” The Future of Foreign Language Education in the United States, edited by T. Osborn, 1–29. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing, 2002. Hull, J. D. Primer of Life Adjustment Education for Youth. Chicago: American Technological Association, 1949.

< previous page

page_202

next page >

< previous page

page_203

next page >

Page 203 Inglis, A. J. Principles of Secondary Education . New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1918. Inglis, A. J. “Secondary Education.” Twenty-Five Years of American Education, edited by I. L. Kandel, 251–269. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1924. Illinois. Illinois State Code. 1998. Chapter 105/5, section 27–22. Illinois State Board of Education. Foreign Language State Standards (Advisory). 1997a. Online: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ils/lforeignlang.html. Illinois State Board of Education. Questions and Answers about the Standards . 1997b. Online: http://www2.isbe.state.il.us/ils/questions.html. Illinois State Board of Education. Extended Questions and Answers. Illinois Standards Achievement Tests. 2000. Online: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/isat/Q&A1.html. Jenks, F. L. “Behind the Survey’s Findings: Beware of Statisticians Bearing Enrollment Data.” Foreign Language Annals, 15, no. 1 (Feb. 1982): 55–57. Jessen, C. A., and L. B. Herlihy. Offerings and Registrations in High-School Subjects 1933–1934 . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1938. Kandel, I. L. History of Secondary Education . Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press, 1930. Kant, J. G. “Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1968.” Foreign Language Annals 3, no. 3 (1970): 400–458. Kaplan, R. B., and R. B. Baldauf. Language Planning: From Practice to Theory . Philadelphia: Multilingual Matter Ltd., 1997. Kennedy, D. F., and W. E. De Lorenzo. “Point: The Case for Exploratory Programs in Middle/Junior High School.” Foreign Language Annals 27, no. 1 (1994): 69–73. Kliebard, H. M. The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893–1958, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 1995. Knop, C. K., and P. Sandrock. “Point: The Case for a Sequential Second Language Learning Experience at the Middle Level.” Foreign Language Annals 27, no. 1 (1994): 77–83. Kohn, A. “The Dark Side of Standards.” Education Update 41, no. 3 (March 1999): 7. Krug, E. A. “Graduates of Secondary Schools in and around 1900: Did Most of Them Go to College?” The School Review 70 (1962): 266–272. Krug, E. A. The Shaping of the American High School. New York: Harper and Row, 1964. Lafayette, R. C. National Standards, a Catalyst for Reform . Lincolnwood, IL: National Text-book Company, 1996. Lafayette, R. C., and J. B. Draper. Introduction to National Standards, a Catalyst for Reform, edited by R. C. Lafayette, 1-8. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1996. Lafayette, R. C., and J. K. Phillips. “Reactions to the Catalyst: Implications for Our New Professional Structure.” National Standards, a Catalyst for Reform, edited by R. C. Lafayette, 197–209. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1996. Lambert, R. D. “Problems and Processes in U.S. Foreign Language Planning.” The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science . Foreign Language Policy: An Agenda for Change 532 (March 1994a): 47–58. Lambert, R. D. “Some Issues in Language Policy Planning for Higher Education.” The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science. Foreign Language Policy: An Agenda for Change 532 (March 1994b): 123–137. Lange, D. L. “Sketching the Crises and Exploring Different Perspectives in the Foreign Language Curriculum.” New Perspectives and New Directions in Foreign Language Education, edited by D. W. Birckbichler, 77–109. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1990. Lange, D. L. “Models of Articulation: Struggles and Success.” Association of Departments of Foreign Languages Bulletin 28, no. 2 (Winter 1997): 31–42.

< previous page

page_203

next page >

< previous page

page_204

next page >

Page 204 Lee, O., and S. H. Fradd. “Science for All, Including Students from Non-English-Language Backgrounds.” Educational Researcher 27, no. 4 (May 1998): 12–21. Levin, H. M. “Educational Performance Standards and the Economy.” Educational Researcher 27, no. 4 (May 1998): 4–10. Lewelling, V., and J. Rennie. “State Initiatives for Foreign Language Instruction.” The ERIC Review 6, no. 1 (1998): 43–46. Love, J. F. “A Study of Why Foreign Language Students Do Not Take German in Schools Where It Is Offered in Tennessee.” Dissertation Abstracts International 48, no. 11 (1998): 2798. Markham, K.. “Standards for Student Performance.” ERIC Digest 81, no. ED35655. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, (May 1993). Marzano, R. J., and J. S. Kendall. The Fall and Rise of Standards-Based Education . Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). 1996. Online: http:///www.mcrel.org/standards/articles/fall-and-rise.asp. Massachusetts Department of Education. The Common Core of Learning . 1996. Online: http://www.doe.mass.edu/doedocs/commoncore. Massachusetts Department of Education. The Massachusetts Foreign Language Curriculum Framework . Boston: Author, 1999a. Massachusetts Department of Education. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System . 1999b. Online: http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas. Massachusetts General Law. Chapter 71: Public Schools. 2000. Online: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/gl-71-toc.htm. Massell, D., M. Kirst, and M. Hoppe. Persistence and Change: Standards-Based Systemic Reform in Nine States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, 1997. Met, M. “Current Foreign Language Practices in Middle Schools.” Foreign Language Annals 27, no. 1 (1994): 43–58. Met, M. “Foreign Language Instruction in Middle Schools: A New View for the Coming Century.” Foreign Language Learning. The Journey of a Lifetime, edited by R. Donato and R. M. Terry, 76–109. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1995. Miles, M. B. Innovation in Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Minert, R. P. “The Influence of Student-Identified Factors on Enrollments in Foreign Language Courses in Public High Schools in the United States.” Dissertation Abstracts International 52, no. 5 (1991): 1669. Minert, R. P.. “Factors Influencing Enrollments in Public High School German Courses: Results of a National Survey.” Unterrichtspraxis 25, no. 2 (1992): 173–183. Minium, E. W., B. M. King, and G. Bear. Statistical Reasoning in Psychology and Education, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1993. Modern Language Association. “Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public High Schools.” PMLA 70, no. 4, pt 2 (1955): 52–56. National Center for Education Statistics The 1994 High School Transcript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1994, 1990, 1987, and 1982 High School Graduates (Revised) . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 98-532, 1998. National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1983.

< previous page

page_204

next page >

< previous page

page_205

next page >

Page 205 National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages. “Foreign Language Programs and the Middle School of the Nineties.” Foreign Language Annals 27, no. 1 (1994): 59–68. National Education Association. Report of the Committee on Secondary School Studies . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1893. National Education Goals Panel. Goals. 2000. Online: http://www.negp.gov/page3-1.htm. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Inc., 1996. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Inc., 1999. New Jersey Department of Education. New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards. 1996a. Online: http://www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/index.html. New Jersey Department of Education. New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards: Introduction. 1996b. Online: http://www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/01intro.html. New Jersey Department of Education. New Jersey World Languages Curriculum Framework. A Document in Support of the Core Curriculum Content Standards for World Languages. Trenton, NJ: Author, 1999a. New Jersey Department of Education. Proposed Code. New Jersey Administrative Code. Title 6A. Standards and Assessment for Student Achievement . Chapter 6. 1999b. Online: http://www.state.nj.us/njded/proposed/standards/stass.htm. New Jersey Department of Education. Press Release: Commissioner of Education Presents Revised Standards and Assessment Code Proposal to State Board of Education. January 5, 2000a. Online: http://www.state.nj.us/njded/news/0105stass.htm. New Jersey Department of Education.. Press Release: Department of Education Provides Sample ESPA and GEPA Tests to the Public. January 21, 2000b. Online: http://www.state.nj.us/njded/news/0121tests.htm. New Jersey Department of Education. Press Release: New Jersey Readies to Administer Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment. March 3, 2000c. Online: http://www.state.nj.us/njded/news/0303gepa.htm. New York State Department of Education. Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. Preliminary Draft Framework . Languages Other Than English (LOTE). Albany, NY: Author, 1995. New York State Department of Education. Revisions to Sections 100.1, 100.2, 100.3, 100.4, 100.5, 100.6, 100.7, 100.8 and 100.9 of Part 100 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Relating to General Education and Diploma Requirements. Albany, NY: Author, 1999. O’Day, J. A., and M. S. Smith. “Systemic Reform and Educational Opportunity.” Designing Coherent Education Policy, edited by S. H. Fuhrman, 250–312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993. Omaggio Hadley, A. Teaching Language in Context, 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers, 1993. O’Neil, J. “Fads and Fireflies: The Difficulties of Sustaining Change.” Educational Leadership 57, no. 7 (Spring 2000): 6–9. O’Neil, J., and C. Tell.. “Why Students Lose When Tougher Standards Win. A Conversation with Alfie Kohn.” Educational Leadership 57, no. 1 (September 1999): 18–22. Oregon. Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century. 1995 and 1997 (revised), 329–487.

< previous page

page_205

next page >

< previous page

page_206

next page >

Page 206 Oregon Department of Education. Oregon School Improvement: A Brief History. 1999a. Online: http://www.ode.state.or.us/edact/history.htm. Oregon Department of Education. A Brief Overview of the PASS System . 1999b. Online: http://www.ous.edu/pass/info/about_pass.html. Oregon Department of Education. PASS Second Languages. 1999c. Online: http://www.ous.edu/pass/standards/second/sec_students.html. Oregon Department of Education. PASS Second Languages—A Oral Communication . 1999d. Online: http://www.ous.edu/pass/standards/second/sec_a.html. Orland, M. E., and A. Tan. Securing Equal Educational Opportunities: Past Trends and Coming Challenges. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, February 1995. Online: http://www.financeproject.org/equal.html. Ornstein, A. C., and D. U. Levine. Foundations of Education, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989. Osborne, T. A. Critical Reflection and the Foreign Language Classroom. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, 2000. Osborne, T. A. The Future of Foreign Language Education in the United States . Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing, 2002. Osterndorf, L. C., and P. J. Horn. Course Offerings, Enrollments, and Curriculum Practices in Public Secondary Schools, 1972–1973 . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Parker, W. R. The National Interest and Foreign Languages. U.S. National Commission for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957. Phillips, J. K. “Standards for World Languages: On a Firm Foundation.” Foreign Language Standards: Linking Theories, Research, and Practices, edited by J. K. Phillips and R. M. Terry, 1–14. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1998. Phillips, J. K., and R. C. Lafayette. “Reactions to the Catalyst: Implications for Our New Professional Structure.” National Standards. A Catalyst for Reform, edited by R. C. Lafayette, 197–210. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1996. Phillips, J. K., and R. M. Terry. Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1999. Popham, D. F. Foundations of Secondary Education. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1969. President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies. Background Papers and Studies . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979a… President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies. Strength through Wisdom. A Critique of U.S. Capability. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979b. Project on Instruction. The Scholars Look at Schools. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1962. Ramage, K. “Motivational Factors and Persistence in Foreign Language Study.” Language Learning 40, no. 2 (1990): 189–219. Ravitch, D. National Standards in American Education. A Citizen’s Guide. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1995a. Ravtich, D. “The Search for Order and the Rejection of Conformity: Standards in American Education.” Learning from the Past, edited by D. Ravitch and M. A. Visnovskis, 167–190. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995b. Ravitch, D., and M. A. Visnovskis, eds., Learning from the Past . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

< previous page

page_206

next page >

< previous page

page_207

next page >

Page 207 Reinert, H. “Student Attitudes Toward Foreign Language—No Sale!” Modern Language Journal 58, no. 5 (1970): 107–112. Rhodes, N., and L. Branaman. A National Survey of Foreign Language Instruction in Elementary and Secondary Schools. Changing Picture: 1987–1997. Executive Summary (Draft) 1997. Online: http://www.cal.org. Rhodes, N., and L. Branaman. Foreign Language Instruction in the United States. A National Survey of Elementary and Secondary Schools. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Company, Inc., 1999. Rhodes, Nancy, telephone conversation with author, 11 February 2000. Rice, M. C., and Gaumnitz. “Statistics of Public Secondary Day Schools, 1951–52.” Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1950–1952, 1–81. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1954. Rice, M. C., R. C. Story, J. D. Hull, and G. S. Wright. “Offerings and Enrollments in High-School Subjects.” Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1948–1950, 1–118 . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1951. Riordan, Kathleen, telephone conversation with author, 28 April 2000. Scebold, C. E. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1970. Bureau Number BR-1-1012, Contract OEC-0-71-2404-823. New York: Modern Language Association, June 1973. Scebold, C. E. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1974. Contract OEC-0-74-3411. New York: Modern Language Association, December 1976. Scebold, C. E., H. F. Egan, and S. B. Hammond. Survey of Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1976. Grant G000-77-00391. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1980. Schmoker, M., and R. J. Marzano. “Realizing the Promise of Standards-Based Education.” Educational Leadership 56, no. 6 (1999): 17–21. Schurr, S. L., J. Thomason, and M. Thomason. Teaching at the Middle Level. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1996. Schwartz, W. “Opportunity to Learn Standards: Their Impact on Urban Students.” ERIC Digest 110, no. ED389816. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, 1995. Smith, W. H. “The New England Grammar School, 1635–1700.” School Review 10 (1902): 513–531. Solomon, P. G. The Curriculum Bridge. From Standards to Actual Classroom Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., 1998. Spears, H. The Emerging High School Curriculum . New York: American Book Company, 1940. Speiller, J. “Factors That Influence High School Students’ Decisions to Continue or Discontinue the Study of French and Spanish After levels II, III, and IV.” Foreign Language Annals 21, no. 6 (1988): 535–545. Stern, H. H. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Swaffar, J. K., K. M. Arens, and H. Byrnes. “The New Paradigm in Language Learning.” Reading for Meaning, An Integrated Approach to Language Learning, edited by J. K. Swaffar, K. M. Arens, and H. Byrnes, 5–10. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991. Tanner, D. Secondary Curriculum. Theory and Development . New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., 1971. Taylor, H. Students Without Teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

< previous page

page_207

next page >

< previous page

page_208

next page >

Page 208 Teague, C., and H. Rutimann. Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1965. Report Number BR-5-1092, Contract OEC-6-14-015. New York: Modern Language Association, September 1, 1967. Tharp, J. B. “The Place of Foreign Language Study in the Post-War Reconstruction of Education.” Modern Language Journal 27 (1943): 323–332. Tomlinson, T. M., and H. J. Walberg. Academic Work and Educational Excellence . Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Pub. Corp., 1986. Tyack, D., and L. Cuban. Tinkering Toward Utopia. A Century of Public School Reform . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Uhl, W. L. Secondary School Curricula. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927. Urban, W. J. and J. L. Wagoner. American Education: A History. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996. U.S. Department of Commerce. Historical Statistics of the United States. Colonial Times to 1970 pt. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1975. U.S. Department of Education. America 2000: An Education Strategy. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1991. U.S. Department of Education. Digest of Education Statistics 1995. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 95-029, 1995. U.S. Department of Education. Goals 2000: A Progress Report–—Fall 1996 . 1996. Online: http://www.ed.gov/G2K/ProgRpt96/. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 1998. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 98-013, 1998. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1998. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 1999-036, 1999. U.S. Department of Education. Digest of Education Statistics 2001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 2002130. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Projections of Education Statistics to 2009. NCES 1999-–038. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1999. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 2000-031, 2000. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 2001. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 2001-072, 2001. U.S. Department of the Interior. Biennial Survey of Education 1921–1922 . Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1924. U.S. Department of the Interior. Biennial Survey of Education 1926–1928 . Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1890–1991 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894a. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1891–1992 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894b.

< previous page

page_208

next page >

< previous page

page_209

next page >

Page 209 U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1892–-1993 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1895. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1893–1994 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1896. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1895–1996 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1897. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1896–1997 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1898. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1897–1998 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1899. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1898–1999 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1900–1901 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1902. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1902 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1903. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1904 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1906. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1907. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1906 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ended June, 30, 1910 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1911. U.S. Office of Education. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ending June 30, 1917 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1917. Voehl, Judith-Ann, telephone conversation with author, 28 April 2000. Watzke, J. L. “Student Transition from the High School Classroom to the College Major: Implications for Reform.” Association of Departments of Foreign Language (ADFL) Bulletin 31, no. 3 (2000): 45–52. Watzke, J. L.. “Why Don’t Students Study Russian?” ACTR Letter 20, no. 2 (Winter 1993): 1–8. Welles, E. “Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Implications and Perceptions.” ACTFL Newsletter 11, no. 1 (Fall 1998): 7–9. Werner, O. H. “The Trend in the Study of Foreign Languages in American High Schools.” School and Society, 22 (1925): 268–272. West, J., L. Diodato, and N. Sandberg. A Trend Study of High School Offerings and Enrollments: 1972– 1973 and 1981–1982. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, NCES 84–224, 1984. Willis, G., W. H. Schubert, R. V. Bullough, C. Kridel, and J. T. Holton. The American Curriculum. A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993. Wright, G. S. Subject Offerings and Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Zeran, F. R. Life Adjustment Education in Action. New York: Chartwell House, 1953. Zimmer-Loew, H. “Professional Policy in Foreign Language Education: What It Is and How We Get It.” National Standards, a Catalyst for Reform, edited by R. C. Lafayette, 23–38. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 1996.

< previous page

page_209

next page >

< previous page

page_210

next page >

page_210

next page >

Page 210 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_211

next page >

Page 211 Index Note: bold-faced page numbers refer to illustrations. absence or reduction of foreign langage in general/basic education, 100 academic course taking increases, 79 academies, 1, 3–7 accountability through standards in education (See standards-based education reform) ACTFL Provisional Proficiency Guidelines , 67, 125 advanced level studies in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) system, 121 in New York, 109 in Oregon, 110–113 African languages, 58 Alexander, Lamar, 70–71 All Handicapped Children Act (1975), 54 America 2000 (See also standards-based learning), 70, 71–73, 79, 82 American Association of Teachers of French (AATF), 82 American Association of Teachers of German (AATG), 82 American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portugese (AATSP), 82 American Council on Education, 29, 41 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), 67, 82, 125 American Federation of Teachers, 78 American High School Today (1959), 48, 122 American Indian languages, 58 American Sign Language (ASL), 105, 129–130 Andover Academy, 5 Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP)/Army Method and, 49, 56 Asian languages, 58 Association of College and Preparatory Schools of the Middle States and Maryland, 10 audio-lingual method (ALM), 49, 55–56, 59, 85 Barnard, Henry, 3, 6 beginning-level enrollments, 56, 102 differentiation in language study and, 35–36 Nation at Risk, A and, 63–65 standards-based learning and, 87–88 two-year compromise for higher education and, 123–124 Bell, Terrence, 59 Bestor, Arthur, 47 Bilingual Education Act of 1968, 54 boarding schools, 4 Bruner, Jerome, 48 Bush (George H.) administration, 71, 77, 78 Cardinal Principles of 1918, 29–34, 40, 60, 100, 103 Carnegie Corporation/Foundation, 29, 47, 71 Carnegie units, 64, 71–72 Carter administration, 62 Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), 80, 87–88 Center for the Study of Reading (CSR), 78

< previous page

page_211

next page >

< previous page

page_212

next page >

Page 212 Certificates of Initial Mastery/Advanced Mastery (CIM/AM), Oregon, 110 Chicago Academic Standards Exams (CSE), 120 Chicago Public Schools (CPS) system, OTL and, 105, 118–122, 124, 130 Chinese language study, 53 during Civil Rights era (1960s–1970s), 58 during Cold War era and NDEA, 50 enrollment trends in, 129 Civil Rights Act of 1965, 54 Civil Rights era (1960s–1970s), 54–59 audio-lingual method (ALM) and, 55–56 Chinese language enrollment and, 58 college entrance levels and, 57 enrollment trends during, 57–58 French language enrollment and, 58 general education and “general languages” in, 58 Italian language enrollment and, 58 Japanese language enrollment and, 58 Latin language enrollment and, 58 National Defense Education Act (NDEA) and, 58–59 new methodologies of, 56–57 Russian language enrollment and, 58 Spanish language enrollment and, 57–58 classical languages, 1–3, 6, 129 enrollment trends for, 18–19, 20, 31, 32, 102–104 standardization of curriculum for, 11 standards-based learning and, 82 Clinton administration, 70, 73–74, 78 cognitive code learning, 56 Cold War era and NDEA, 45–51, 53 Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP)/Army Method and, 49, 56 audio-lingual method (ALM) and, 49 changes in methodology and, 48–49 Chinese language enrollment and, 50 college entrance levels and, 46–47, 50 Conant report and, 47–48 education reform and, 47–48 enrollment trends for, 49–50 essentialist education philosophy and, 45–47 French language enrollment and, 51 German language enrollment and, 51 Latin language enrollment and, 51 modern language as academic subject in, 50–51 Russian language enrollment and, 50 Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill), and, 46–47 Spanish language enrollment and, 51 structural and enrollment changes in, 49–50 Coleman, Algernon, 29–30 Coleman Report of 1929, 30, 33, 42, 48–49 College Entrance Examination Board, 10 colleges and universities, 6 Civil Rights era (1960s-1970s) and, 57 Cold War era and NDEA in, entrance levels for, 46–47, 50 Committee on College Entrance Requirements and, 13, 71 enrollment figures for (c. 1900), 25 Nation at Risk, A and, entrance requirements, 67 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores and, 59 secondary education reform and, as prep schools for, 24–25 Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill), and, 46–47 World War II era and, preparation for, 41–45 Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education (CRSE), 25–27, 29, 60 Committee of Ten report, 9–12, 14, 16, 23–26, 31, 51, 60, 102 Committee on College Entrance Requirements, 13, 71 Committee on Economy of Time in Education, 25 Common Core of Learning, Massachusetts, 116 community language learning, 56 comprehensive data on foreign language education, education reform era (c. 1900) and, 15–21 Conant, James B., 47–48, 101, 122, 127 content and performance standards, 82–85

content-based instruction, 126 Core Contents Standards initiative, New Jersey, 113–115 Costi, Betsy, 112–113, 124 coursetaking changes, 57, 63 credits (See Carnegie units)

< previous page

page_212

next page >

< previous page

page_213

Page 213 curriculum frameworks Chicago Public Schools (CPS) system, 119–120, 119 New Jersey, 115 standards-based learning and, 74–75, 74 curriculum standardization, 9–13, 24–27 Cardinal Principles of 1918 and, 26–27 Civil Rights era and, 54–59 differentiation in foreign languages and, forms of, 30–36 general track curriculum and, 40–41 life adjustment reform and, 40–41 Progressive era reforms (1920s–1930s) and, 27–36 D.C. Heath and Company, 85 designer learning methods, 56–57 differentiation in foreign language study, 30–36 beginning-level study and, 35–36 Cardinal Principles of 1918 and, 31–32 Committee of Ten Report and, 31 modern languages and, 31 pedagogical approach and, 33–35 resistance to, 101 World War I and, trends in foreign language study following, 32–33 economy and foreign language study, 62–63 Educate America Act of 1994, 73 education reform, 9–21, 23–27 All Handicapped Children Act (1975), 54 Bilingual Education Act of 1968 in, 54 Cardinal Principles of 1918 and, 29–34, 40, 60, 100, 103 Civil Rights movement and, 54–59 Cold War era and NDEA in, 47–48 Coleman Report of 1929 and, 30, 33, 42, 48–49 Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education (CRSE), 25–27, 29, 60 Committee of Ten report, 9–12, 14, 16, 23–26, 31, 51, 60, 102 Committee on College Entrance Requirements of 1895 and, 13 Committee on Economy of Time in Education, 25 comprehensive data on foreign language education in, 15–21 curriculum standardization and, 9–13, 24–27 differentiated curriculum in, 28–30 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 54 enrollment by language and, 18–21, 20 enrollment by level of instruction in, 16, 18, 18 enrollment by school and adolescent population in, 15–16, 17 foreign language study and, 13–21 life adjustment reform in, 40–45 Nation at Risk, A and, 59–68 politics and, 69–70 present era, 69–97 Progressive era reforms (1920s–1930s) and, 27–36 Prosser resolution and, 40–41 Smith-Hughes Vocational Education Act of 1917 and, 26 standards-based, 69 Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1972, 54 vocational education and, 27 Education Summit of 1992 (Charlottesville, Virginia), 72 Educational Testing Service (ETS), 68 Educational Wastelands, 47 Eisner, Elliot, 126 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 54 Elementary School Proficiency Assessment (ESPA), New Jersey, 114–115 Eliot, Charles W., 10 embodiment of foreign language education in a single language, 102–104 EMC Publishing Company, 85 English Classical School/English High School, 6 enrollment trends, 18–21, 20 beginning-level study and, 35–36, 102 Civil Rights era (1960s–1970s) and, 57–58 Cold War era and NDEA in, 49–50

next page >

historic gains in foreign language course taking, 79–81, 81 by level of instruction, education reform era (c. 1900) and, 16, 18, 18 linked to curriculum reform, 101–102 Nation at Risk, A and, 62–68 using opportunity to learn (OTL) and standards-based learning, 125–127

< previous page

page_213

next page >

< previous page

page_214

Page 214 present day, 70 Progressive reform era and, 28, 30–31 by school and adolescent population, education reform era (c. 1900) and, 15–16, 17 standards-based learning and, 79, 81, 87–88, 89 World War I and, 32–33 World War II and, 40 equality in education (See also Civil Rights era), 54–59 essentialist education philosophy and, 45–47 Exeter Academy, 5 federal funding of foreign language study, 53 Fenwick, Millicent (See also Strength through Wisdom report), 68 Five Cs, 82–83 foreign language exploratory (FLEX) programs, 90, 97 foreign language sequential (FLES) programs, 90, 97 Foreign Service Institute (FSI) descriptors, 67 Franklin, Benjamin, 4, 5 French language study, 1 Civil Rights era (1960s-1970s) and, 58 Cold War era and NDEA in, 51 enrollment trends for, 19–21, 20, 31–32, 103, 127 Nation at Risk, A and, 63 standards-based learning and, 82, 84 World War I and, trends in study following, 32–33 Garcia, Marco, 121 general education and “general languages” courses, 42–43, 45, 58 General Education in a Free Society report, 42–43 general track curriculum, 40–41 German language study, 1 Cold War era and NDEA in, 51 enrollment trends for, 19–21, 20, 31–32, 103, 127 Nation at Risk, A and, 63 standards-based learning and, 82, 84–85 World War I and, trends in study following, 32–33, 103 global economy era, 53–68 Goals 2000 (See also standards-based learning), 70, 73–74, 76, 122 academic course taking increases and, 79 content and performance standards in, 82–85 opportunity to learn (OTL) standards and, 86–87 progress indicators in, 83–84 Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA), New Jersey, 114–115 graduation requirements in New Jersey, 114–115 in New York, 108–109 grammar schools, Latin, 1–3 Great Depression, 27, 33, 39 Greek language study, 1–4 enrollment trends for, 18–19, 20, 31 standardization of curriculum for, 11 Hall, G. Stanley, 24 Harvard, 2, 42 Harvard Report of 1945, 122 Hawaiian language, 58 heritage learners, 80–81, 130 High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA), New Jersey, 114–115 high schools (See public high schools) Higher Education Act of 1972, 54 historical trends, 100–104 absence or reduction of foreign langage in general/basic education, 100 beginning level enrollments and, 102 embodiment of foreign language education in a single language, 102–104 enrollment losses linked to curriculum reform and, 101–102 increasing ability to enroll all adolescents in foreign language, 104

next page >

National Defense Education Act (NDEA) and, 104 opportunity to learn (OTL) standards and, 104–122 resistance to foreign language differentiation in, 101 horizontal vs. vertical standards in, 76–77 Illinois Standard Achievement Tests (ISAT), 119 Illinois Standards Project, 118 immersion programs, 90

< previous page

page_214

next page >

< previous page

page_215

next page >

Page 215 implications of standards-based learning, 122–130 increasing ability to enroll all adolescents in foreign language, 104 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 75 influence of standards on foreign language learning, 84–85 institutional level and opportunity to learn (OTL) standards, 88–91 International Reading Association, 78 Italian language study, 58, 84 Japanese language study, 53 Civil Rights era (1960s–1970s) and, 58 standards-based learning and, 84 World War II era and, 45 Latin grammar schools, 1–3 Latin language study, 1–4 Civil Rights era (1960s-1970s) and, 58 Cold War era and NDEA in, 51 enrollment trends in, 18–19, 20, 31, 103, 127 standardization of curriculum for, 11 length of study increases and standards-based learning, 80 Life Adjustment Education in Action, 43 life adjustment reform, 40–45 linguistics theories, 56–57 Mann, Horace, 3 Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), 116–117 Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993, 115–116 middle school, 90–91, 126–127 military language training, 45–51, 56 Mills, Richard P., 106 missionaries, 1 Modern Foreign Language Study initiative, 29, 33–34 Modern Language Association (MLA), 29, 46, 48 Modern Language Journal, 45 modern languages, 129 as academic subject, 50–51 differentiation and, 31 enrollment trends in, 19–21, 20, 31–32, 102–104 Modern Foreign Language Study initiative and, 29 standardization of curriculum for, 11 Morrill Act of 1862, 6

Nation at Risk, A, 53–54, 59–68, 70–72, 79–80, 82, 94, 102, 104 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and, 67 beginning-level enrollments and, 63–65 Carnegie units (credits) earned by high school graduates (1982–94), 64 college entrance levels and, 67 coursetaking changes and, 63 economy and, 62–63 education reform and, 60–61 foreign language study trends following, 62–68 Foreign Service Institute (FSI) descriptors and, 67 French and, 63 German and, 63 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reports and, 63, 65, 66 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and, 63 new basics curriculum in, 65, 86 objectives and goals of, 60–61 Oral Proficiency Overview and, 68 President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (PCFLIS) and, 62 proficiency movement in foreign language and, 67 Spanish and, 63 Strength through Wisdom report and, 62, 65 national and state standards, development of, 77–78 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), 59, 63, 65, 66, 81 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 63, 92 National Center for History in the Schools, 77 National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE), 54, 59–62

National Council of Teachers of English, 78

< previous page

page_215

next page >

< previous page

page_216

Page 216 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 77–78 National Defense Education Act (NDEA) (See also Cold War era and NDEA), 46–51, 53, 60, 69, 80, 102, 104, 127 Civil Rights era (1960s-1970s) and, 53–54, 58–59 Nation at Risk, A and, 67 National Education Association (NEA), 9–10 National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC), 74 National Endowment for the Humanities, 78, 82 National Governors Association summit 1989, 71, 74, 82 National Interest and Foreign Languages, The , 46, 48 National Science Foundation, 48 National Standards in Foreign Language Education Projet (NSFLEP), 82, 93–94 “new basics” curriculum, 65, 86 New England Association of College and Preparatory Schools, 10 New Jersey, opportunity to learn (OTL) standards, 105, 113–115 New York, opportunity to learn (OTL) standards, 105–109, 113–115 Nixon administration, 55 North Central Association, 10 opportunity mandates, 91–93, 94 New Jersey, 114 New York, 107–108 Oregon, 110–111 opportunity to learn (OTL) standards (See also standards-based learning), 75–76, 85–94 beginning level enrollments and, 87–88 Chicago Public Schools (CPS) system and, 118–122 content–based instruction and, 126 course level in high school and, 91 enrollment trends and, 87–88, 89, 125–127 foreign language exploratory (FLEX) programs and, 90, 97 foreign language sequential (FLES) programs and, 90, 97 general education and, 127–128 Goals 2000 and, 86–87 immersion programs and, 90 implications of standards-based learning and, 122–130 institutional level and, 88–91 middle school and, 90–91, 126–127 National Standards in Foreign Language Education Projet (NSFLEP), 93–94 New Jersey and, 113–115 New York and, 105–109 Oregon and, 109–113 performance-based assessment and, 124–125 problems of, 85–94 programmatic length and, 124–125 redefinition of foreign languages and, 129–130 response within foreign language standards and, 93–94 school districts and, 104–122 Springfield (Mass.) school system and, 115–118 Standards for Foreign Language Learning and, 86–87, 93–94, 128 state level standards and, 104–122 state mandate and, 91–93, 94 two-year compromise for higher education and, 123–124 opposing ideas in standards-based learning, 76–77 Oral Proficiency Overview, 68 Oregon Action Plan for Excellence, 109–113 Oregon Education Act for the 21st Century, 110–111 Oregon, opportunity to learn (OTL) standards, 105, 109–113, 124 Parker, William Riley, 46, 48 pedagogical approach and differentiation of language study, 33–35 performance–based assessment and, 124–125 performance standards, 75 Philadelphia Academy, 5 Phillips Academy, 5 Physical Sciences Study Committee, 48 politics and education reform, 69–70 Portuguese language study, 45, 82, 84

next page >

Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE), Illinois, 119 precolonial America, 1

< previous page

page_216

next page >

< previous page

page_217

next page >

Page 217 preparatory academies, 5 President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (PCFLIS), 62 Primer of Life Adjustment Education, 43 private academies (See academies) Proficiency-Based Admission Standards System (PASS), Oregon, 111–112 proficiency-movement in foreign language, 67, 114–115 programmatic length and opportunity to learn (OTL) standards, 124–125 progress indicators, in standards-based learning, 83–84 Progressive era reforms (1920s–1930s), 27–36 Coleman Report of 1929 and, 30, 33, 42, 48–49 differentiated curriculum in, 28–30 differentiation in foreign languages and, forms of, 30–36 enrollment trends in, 30–32 Modern Foreign Language Study initiative and, 29, 33–34 World War I and, trends in foreign language study following, 32–33 Prosser, Charles A., 40–41, 101, 122 Prosser resolution, 40–41, 101 public high schools, 1, 5–7, 87–88 Ravitch, Diane, 70 reading method, 45 redefinition of foreign languages and, 129–130 reduction of foreign language in general/basic education, 100 Regents Goals for Elementary and Secondary School Students (New York), 106 resistance to foreign language differentiation, 101 Restoration of Learning , 47 Rice, Joseph Mayer, 24 Russian language study, 53 Civil Rights era (1960s–1970s) and, 58 Cold War era and NDEA in, 50 enrollment trends in, 129 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, Civil Rights era (1960s–1970s) and, 59 school delivery standards (See opportunity to learn) school districts, opportunity to learn (OTL) and standards-based learning, 104–122 School Mathematics Study Group, 48 seat-time mandates, 91–93, 94 in New Jersey, 114 in New York, 106–107 in Oregon, 110–111 second language acquisition (SLA) studies, 56–57 Secondary Education for Life Adjustment of American Youth , 43 secondary schools, academies as, 3–7 Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill), 46–47 Shanker, Albert, 78 Smith–Hughes Vocational Education Act of 1917, 26, 40 social efficiency movement, secondary education reform and, 24–25 Spanish language study, 1, 123 Civil Rights era (1960s–1970s) and, 57–58 Cold War era and NDEA in, 51 enrollment trends in, 19–21, 20, 31–32, 81, 103–104, 127, 129–130 heritage learners and, 80–81 Nation at Risk, A and, 63 standards-based learning and, 82, 84 World War I and, trends in study following, 32–33 World War II era and, rise of, 44–45 Special Committee on the Secondary School Curriculum for American Youth, 41 Springfield (Mass.) school system, opportunity to learn (OTL) standards and, 105, 115–118 Sputnik and language education reform, 46 Standards for Foreign Language Learning , 82–87, 93–94, 122, 128 Standards for Languages Other Than English (New York), 106, 129–130 standards-based learning (See also America 2000; Goals 2000; opportunity to learn), 69, 70–74, 99, 104–122 academic course taking increases and, 79 beginning level enrollments and, 87–88 content and performance standards in, 82–85

curriculum frameworks for, 74–75 defining standards and curriculum for, 74–85

< previous page

page_217

next page >

< previous page

page_218

next page >

Page 218 enrollment trends and, 87–88, 89 Five Cs in, 82–83 forms and functions of standards in, 74–75 Goals 2000 and, 76 historic gains in foreign language course taking, 79–81, 81 horizontal vs. vertical standards in, 76–77 implications of, 122–130 influence of, on foreign language learning, 84–85 length of study increases in, 80 national and state standards in, development of, 77–78 National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (NSFLEP) and, 82 opportunity to learn (OTL) standards in, 75–76, 85–94, 104–122 opposing ideas in standards and, 76–77 performance standards and, 75 progress indicators in, 83–84 response within foreign language standards and, 93–94 school districts and, 104–122 Standards for Foreign Language Learning , 82–87, 93–94, 122 state level standards and, 104–122 state–level standards, 77–78, 104–122 state mandates for opportunity to learn (OTL), 91–93, 94 Strength through Wisdom report, 62, 65 suggestopedia, 56 surrender value of foreign languages, 30 Swahili, 58

Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages in the United Statues, The , 29–30, 33 Title I for disadvantaged children, 75 Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1972, 54 trends in enrollment (See enrollment trends) “two–year compromise” for higher education, 123–124 United States Bureau of Education, 25–26 universities (See colleges and universities) University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), 77 vertical standards, 76–77 Vietnam war era (See also Civil Rights era), 54–59 vocational education, 27 voluntary standards, 70

What the High Schools Ought to Teach (1940), 41 world language, 129 World Language Program, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) system, 120–121 World War I, trends in foreign language study following, 32–33, 39–40, 103 World War II, trends in foreign language following (See also Cold War era), 39–51 Coleman Report of 1929 and, 42 college entrance levels and, 43–44 college preparatory classes and, 41–45 decreasing study trends and, 43–44 essentialist education philosophy and, 45–47 general education and “general language” courses and, 42–43, 45 General Education in a Free Society report and, 42–43 general track curriculum and, 40–41 Japanese language study and, 45 Life Adjustment Education in Action and, 43 life adjustment reform and, 40–45 Portuguese language study and, 45 Primer of Life Adjustment Education and, 43 Prosser resolution and, 40–41 Secondary Education for Life Adjustment of American Youth and, 43 Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill), and, 46–47 Spanish and, rise of popularity in, 44–45

< previous page

page_218

next page >

< previous page

page_219

Page 219 ABOUT THE AUTHOR JOHN L. WATZKE is Assistant Professional Specialist and Fellow at the Institute for Educational Initiatives, University of Notre Dame.

< previous page

page_219