Teaching Foreign Languages in U.S. Public Schools

In the United States the provision of foreign language instruction at the K-12 level varies. Policy and national standard recommendations call for the development of long-term, sequential, and continuous foreign language instruction from kindergarten through grade 12 and beyond. Such instruction would enable American children to develop higher levels of linguistic proficiency as well as cultural competency in target languages. Recently, special attention has been called to the need for foreign language proficiencies, especially in less commonly taught languages that are deemed critical for national security. The ACTFL National Standards for Foreign Language Instruction provide a framework for what such programs should do within the K-12 context and beyond. Available national resources are discussed as well as the current state of K-12 national foreign language programs.

Keywords ACTFL National K-12 Foreign Language Standards; American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL); Immersion; Foreign Language Experience Program (FLEX); Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES); Foreign Language Proficiency; Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTL); Performance Guidelines; Proficiency Guidelines; World Languages

Overview

There are approximately 6912 spoken languages in the world (Gordon, 2005) and the United States has 311 languages. However in the United States, learning a language other than English and developing the cultural competencies that are part of foreign language learning, has not been high priority in public education (Sigsbee, 2002).

English has become the language of international business, science, politics, and the Internet. While the world understands us, we do not understand the world. People all over the world have access to our literature, intelligence, technical manuals, academic journals and our culture. But we lack the ability to do the same in other languages (National Virtual Translation Center, 2007a, par. 2).

Linguistic & Cultural Isolation

This one-way linguistic and cultural isolation from the world community has significant implications for the future opportunities of American K-12 students as they exit school. According to the statement put forth by the Committee for Economic Development (2006), a non-partisan, non-political, non-profit independent research organization, U.S. students lack the linguistic and cultural skills of their peers in other nations. This lack of knowledge has a negative impact not only on our national security, but on our nation's ability to progress economically in the global marketplace (Committee for Economic Development, 2006; United States Department of Education, 2006). From small businesses to multi-nationals, the ability to effectively communicate in the languages and cultures of international consumers, business partners, and employees is crucial (CED, 2006).

The Center for Applied Linguistics Stated in 2006 that 24% of American public elementary schools offer foreign language instruction and that of those, a majority of the programs do not focus on foreign language proficiency. By 2013, however, that number had dropped, especially in rural school districts. Instead, the programs seek merely to expose children to foreign language and culture. Among American high schools, students who study a foreign language take Spanish, French, German, or Latin. The need for proficient speakers of Less Commonly Taught Languages, or LCTL's, (ED, 2006, CED, 2005) is urgent. Critical or Less Commonly Taught Languages are defined in the U.S. as those languages other than French, Spanish, and German (Center for Advanced Research in Second Language Acquisition, n.d.).

Only a small minority American high school students are learning Chinese, Korean, Farsi, Arabic, Russian, Urdu, or Japanese. By 2011, however, the number of students studying Chinese had begun increasing, tripling between 2005 and 2008 and continuing to grow.

Rather than addressing national economic and security needs that require a multi-lingual and culturally competent citizenry, many schools are actually narrowing their available programs of study because of the educational reform movement. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which holds schools accountable in the reading, mathematics and science achievement of all students, encourages schools to devote more time and resources to those subjects. While those subjects are critical, many students remain ill prepared as global citizens as they are not offered the opportunity to learn other languages and cultures (CED, 2006).

A Critical Need

In terms of national security, diplomats and federal employees need to be able to communicate effectively, with cultural understanding and awareness with other nations (CED, 2006). Bremer reports (as cited in CED, 2006) that in 2004, three years after 9/11, the United States Foreign Service had eight Arabic speakers at the highest proficiency level and only 27 at the next highest level of proficiency.

In view of the inadequate numbers of American citizens prepared to function in a multi-linguistic and culturally diverse global society, 300 leaders from business and industry, national, federal, state, and local government agencies, foreign nations, academia, and foreign language interest groups came together in 2004 to address the issue (NLC, 2005). They identified trends, best practices and the foreign language and culture needs at various levels of both the private and government sectors. From their work, they determined that a national foreign language strategy was needed to engage the American public and made several recommendations.

One of those recommendations was that federal, state, and local government agencies should allocate resources and establish foreign language requirements from kindergarten through advanced degrees. They further recommended that standards-based policies be applied and implemented throughout the educational pipeline and that educational systems at the primary and secondary levels (as well as beyond) ensure continuous language and cultural instruction that would lead to advanced linguistic and cultural proficiency (CED, 2005).

Further Insights

An Optional National Agenda

While a national agenda may exist in teaching foreign languages, it is optional. It is up to each state government to decide what students must study in order to earn a high school diploma. The state responsibility is met through the local school systems. If the state does not require a continuous foreign language program or even limited foreign language instruction, local districts can and do decide, contrary to national economic and security needs, not to offer such programs. In many districts and in many states, foreign languages are simply not part of the core curriculum (Sigsbee, 2002).

For those districts and those states who value foreign language education for all students, there are resources available. In addition to the plethora of diverse state foreign language guidelines, standards, and assessments, there are national foreign language standards, national foreign language proficiency guidelines, and a growing number of federally funded (ED, 2007) national resources in second language teaching research, best practices, instructional tools and technology that can be used in the K-12 setting (Marcos, n.d.).

The first national standards in K-12 foreign language instruction were published in 1996 by the ACTFL and called the Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century. These standards were to address the definition and function of U.S. foreign language instruction in the K-12 setting and were created based on a consensus of language educators, business, government, and other stakeholders (Marcos, n.d.). They do not describe the current state of U.S. K-12 foreign language instruction, rather they describe best practices in the field and specify content standards, or what students should be able to know and do, in foreign languages (ACTFL, 1996). The second edition of the standards was published in 1999 and added information about how to apply the standards in specific languages (Marcos, n.d). The specific languages included in the national standards are: Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Classical languages, French, Spanish, German, Italian, and Portuguese (Scebold & Wallinger, 2000). The third edition, published in 2006 added Arabic specific-guidelines (ACTFL, 2006).

The ACTFL national standards support the ideal that second language instruction should begin at the elementary level and continue sequentially through the middle school and high school levels as well as beyond (ACTFL, 1996). It does not specify a curriculum or sequence of instruction but describes the learning experiences needed to achieve the standards. It is based on five goals areas critical to linguistic and cultural learning:

• Communication,

• Cultures,

• Connections,

• Comparisons and

• Communities.

The most fundamental aspect of which is communication (ACTFL, 1996).

Second Language Proficiency & Cultural Competence

Language learning is much more than the development of linguistic facility in the writing, speaking, reading, and aural comprehension of a given language. Second language proficiency means that one can effectively use the second language to communicate within specific contexts and function appropriately according to the often hidden rules of the second language community.

For example, yes does not always mean yes. Take for example, someone from a culture that is used to straightforward, even if unpleasant, responses in the business context. Imagine that she or he needs to confirm arrival of a multi-million dollar shipment by a specific time from a colleague or partner in another part of the world. When the question is asked, "Will the parts be here by such and such a date?" The answer may very well be, "Yes." Unbeknown to the requester who assumes a uniform worldview (that of his or her own culture) the person sending the parts knows that there is some doubt as to whether the shipment will be able to go out on time. However, in her or his culture it would not be appropriate to displease or offend the requester. Lack of cultural competencies in today's global economy can be expensive to those who are linguistically and culturally handicapped.

The 5 Goals of ACTFL

Without cultural competency, there can be no true communication in the target language. Second language learners need to have an awareness and understanding of both the culture of "self" and the culture of "other" to successfully negotiate communication in the context of "we." What is said or written is not always indicative of what is meant. The first and second goals of communication and culture of the ACTFL Standards recognize the interdependence of culture and language (ACTFL, 1996).

The third goal, connections, permits the second language learner to access bodies of knowledge that are not available to a monolingual (ACTFL, 1996). With a second language, one can access current events, history, or recent works and discoveries in any discipline that are unknown by non-users of the second language. These connections could be to literature, art, sports, medicine, and a multitude of other areas of knowledge. For those limited to monolingual status, information and ideas are restricted.

The fourth goal of the ACTFL Standards, comparison, speaks to the necessity of second language learners to compare and contrast their own language and cultures with that of the target language and culture. These comparisons allow second language learners to better understand themselves as well as others. They enlighten the learner to the existence of a multiplicity of worldviews (ACTFL, 1996).

The fifth goal of the ACFTL National Foreign Language Standards is communities. Learners cannot develop linguistic and cultural competencies in isolation of the people who regularly use the language. Through interaction within local and global multilingual communities, second language learners can develop the ability to interact appropriately with speakers of the target language and culture (ACTFL, 1996).

Within the broad goals of communication, culture, comparisons, connections and communities, there are specific standards. Provided for the standards are general progress indicators that describe what second language learning students should be able to know and do at the 4th, 8th and 12th grade levels relative to a given standard within each goal (ACTFL, 1996). ACTFL (as cited in Kelly-Hall, 2001) designed its National Foreign Language Standards to reflect second language abilities that result from continued, sequential second language instruction from kindergarten through 12th grade. In the United States, few such programs exist (Kelly-Hall, 2001).

Proficiency Guidelines

It is not just basic proficiency, but advanced foreign language and cultural proficiency that is necessary for the economic and national security of the United States (CED, 2005, NVTC, 2007b). What then is proficiency and what do we know about how long it takes to develop in a second language or culture?

In the United States there are two national foreign language proficiency guidelines. The first is the U.S. Government Interagency Language Roundtable (IRL) which measures second language skills in speaking, writing, reading, listening, and translation (NCVT, 2007c). The second set of guidelines, upon which the national foreign language standards for are based, were introduced by ACTFL in 1986 (Kelly-Hall, 2001).

The ACTFL foreign language proficiency guidelines address the skill areas of reading, writing, speaking and listening. In ACTFL guidelines, proficiency was divided into four levels: novice, intermediate, advanced, and superior (Kelly-Hall, 2001). Within each of the three first levels (novice, intermediate, and advanced) each level was further broken down into low, mid, and high (Language Testing International, 2004). When describing foreign language proficiency, usually, learners will have different proficiency levels across the four skill areas and each skill must be assessed individually (NCVT, 2007c).

Teaching Resources

For students in the K-12 system to develop higher levels of second language proficiency, second language instruction must begin in the early levels of K-12 education and continue sequentially through each following grade (NLC, 2005; Malone, Rifkin, Christian, and Johnson, 2005). K12 schools that offer foreign language programs have a variety of national tools at their disposal. For example, K-8 foreign language educators can use Ñandutí. This is a web-based resource center for K-8 foreign language practitioners originally funded by the federal government and run by the Center for Applied Linguistics. It offers a wealth of instructional materials, collaborative opportunities though its listserv, program development information, and methodology overviews (Ñandutí, 2006). The National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center is a federally funded national resource as well that is developing a national Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES), K-5 Chinese program that will be available for districts nationwide (National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center, 2003). Under the National Security Language Initiative, the federal government will be providing millions to local districts and states to develop K-16 program LCTL foreign language models that would provide sequential, continuous learning opportunities in languages identified as critical to national security. In addition, it proposes an e-based clearinghouse that would serve as a central access point for the public to the materials and web-based instructional programs in NCTL's identified as critical that have be created by already existing national resource centers (ED, 2007).

In addition to nationally funded resources, K-12 foreign language programs have many technology tools to use in providing language learning opportunities that are meaningful and motivating to technologically savvy language learners. Video and audio conferencing tools, instant messaging, web-based communities, and engaging software programs are just some of the tools for children in districts who can afford these options (LeLoup & Ponterio, 2000).

The major programs used at the elementary level are FLEX, FLES, and Immersion programs (National Council of State Supervisors of Languages, 2007). Foreign Language Experience programs (FLEX) do not have proficiency in a second language as a goal. Their purpose is to expose children to one or more foreign languages and motivate them to learn one in the future (Morrison, n.d.). FLES, or Foreign Language in the Elementary School programs do have second language proficiency as a goal. They are sequential foreign language programs that offer instruction in the four skill areas of a second language (NCSSL, 2007) and sometimes use the second language to teach regular school curriculum (Morrison, n.d.) In immersion programs, all or much or the core academic curriculum is delivered using the foreign language as the medium of instruction (NCSSL, 2007). Curtain and Pesola (as cited by Morrison, n.d.) explain that immersion programs result in grade level English language arts proficiency, cross-cultural understanding, and functional second language proficiency. There are a variety of second language immersion program models that exist. Some begin at the elementary level and permit K-12 students to continue a sequence of foreign language study through graduation.

Issues

Inconsistent Nationwide Access to Foreign Language Instruction for K-12 Students

There is great diversity in how states are meeting the foreign language and cultural competencies of their children and nation. The state of Washington, for example, as late as 2005, had no secondary education standards for world languages. It then adopted the ACTFL national foreign language standards for its children. By adopting standards common to other states, Washington enabled its educational stakeholders and practitioners to make use of the vast materials already available at the national level and to collaborate with other states in providing foreign language instruction (Washington Association of Foreign Languages, 2006, April).

Minnesota, in contrast, has no state standards in world languages. Districts are to develop their own foreign language standards, if they so choose, and decide which foreign language and cultural competencies are important. Minnesota provides a state- developed booklet based on the ACTFL standards to assist individual districts. (Minnesota Department of Education, 2007).

Other states have had world language standards for much longer. New York, for example has state standards in modern languages, Native American languages, Latin and American sign language since 1996 and has continued to revise and improve upon them. Since 1998, foreign language at the elementary level has been a New York State requirement with second language proficiency tests given to its children in 4th, 8th, and 12th grades in which they must demonstrate second language communicative skills and basic second language literacy (University of the State of New York Board of Regents, 1996). In 2011 New York dropped its Regents exams in Italian, Spanish, and French.

Shortage of Foreign Language Teachers

While this is especially true of teachers that are proficient in LCTL's (ED, 2006) it is true for teachers of more commonly taught languages (Suhay, 1999). Each state has its own licensure standards for foreign language teachers in the public K-12 system so the requirements to practice in a given state vary. Generally, in addition to advanced proficiency in a second language as well as English, teachers must have solid foundations in the theories of second language acquisition, second language pedagogy, and educational psychology. In addition, they need expertise in the unique physiological, psychological, emotional, and cognitive learner characteristics of the specific age groups they are licensed to teach. They must complete supervised, unpaid internships. Lastly, they need to be technologically literate so that they avail their students of the vast array of resources for meaningful, communicative second learning experiences in the second language classroom.

For foreign language teachers at the K-12 level, there is limited interstate professional mobility due to a lack of uniform licensure standards and reciprocity agreements. As a result, foreign language teachers must be willing, in many cases, to restrict their residence to one state only, to states that share licensure reciprocity agreements.

If U.S. geographical mobility is desired, foreign language teachers must be willing to invest in additional state-specific coursework and/or licensure requirements that will permit them continued practice in their field.

For teachers of French or Spanish who wish to teach those languages to students of early adolescence through young adulthood, National Board Certification is an option (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2007a). The cost, approximately $2,500, is in addition to original state-specific licensing fees and state-specific academic preparation (NBPTS, 2007c). Upon fulfilling the requirements for National Board Certification, French and/or Spanish teachers are not guaranteed that it will allow professional mobility across the U.S. (NBPTS, 2007b). Additionally, there are no National Board Certificates available for teachers of foreign languages other than French or Spanish at any grade level (NBPTS, 2007a) that might ease geographical mobility for practitioners.

Cost

States that have included foreign language in their core curriculums have done so at their own initiative and, unless they were able to receive grants from the private or federal sectors, at their own expense. When the federal government legislates education policy, it does not always legislate a supply of funds adequate for states and local districts to implement the policies. Likewise, when the states legislate education policies they do not always legislate a supply of funds adequate for the local districts to implement state mandates.

The fragmentation of K-12 foreign language learning standards and curriculums could result in multiple districts within multiple states having to invest substantial amounts of manpower and tax dollars in program development and maintenance. For states that have collaborated on foreign language standards or adopted the national ones, the burdens could be shared and efforts need not be duplicated. For states that either have no standards or have elected to work independently of national or multi-state standards and aligned materials and assessments, the costs would be greater.

Many individual districts, already struggle to fund the curriculum development and instructional costs of courses other than foreign languages, whose importance has been previously mandated either by the state or national government. In addition, in many subject areas, including foreign language, there is vast national redundancy of work hours and financial expenditures done with education monies at the state and local levels. When states work alone and create their own standards, curriculums, and/or assessments, districts may or may not be able to use already existing national resources or the programs already developed by other states. Depending on how the states structure their educational systems, each district may already be funding its own curriculum specialists for each required area of study and be creating standards and programs independent of existing programs across the street in another district.

Implementing a comprehensive, sequential foreign language program from the early grade levels through high school will require additional instructional time each day, as well as staff. Absent consistent nation-wide collaboration between local, state, and national governments in the foreign language education of K-12 students, it is doubtful that the best practices proposed by the ACTFL standards will become a uniform reality for K-12 students in U.S. schools.

Terms & Concepts

ACTFL National K-12 Foreign Language Standards: Outlines the goals and standards that should be addressed in foreign language instruction that begins at the elementary level and follows sequentially through grade 12 and beyond.

Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES): Aims for some degree of second language proficiency.

Foreign Language Proficiency: Can describe a person's writing, speaking, listening comprehension or reading abilities in a given language.

Immersion: A general model of second language and core curriculum instruction that uses the second language as the medium of instruction. Multiple variations of immersion programs exist.

Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTL): From the American perspective, foreign languages other than French, Spanish and German.

Performance Guidelines: ACTFL general descriptions of communicative performance in a foreign language based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and National K-12 Foreign Language Standards.

Proficiency Guidelines: National foreign language guidelines established by ACTFL that describe reading, writing, speaking and listening skills of learners at the novice, intermediate, advanced and superior levels of foreign language proficiencies.

World Languages: There are 6912 living languages, including 114 sign languages.

Bibliography

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1996). Executive summary of standards for foreign language learning: preparing for the twenty-first century. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages http://www.actfl.org/files/public/execsumm.pdf

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2006). New Standards for Arabic language learning published in new book. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=4370

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. (n.d.). Less commonly taught languages. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition http://carla.umn.edu/lctl/

Committee for Economic Development. (2006). Education for global leadership: The importance of international studies and foreign language education for U.S. economic and national security. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from the Center for Economic Development http://www.ced.org/newsroom/press/press_foreignlanguages

Gordon, R. (Ed.). (2005). Ethnologue: languages of the world, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from http://www.ethnologue.com/web.asp

Huhn, C. (2012). In search of innovation: Research on effective models of foreign language teacher preparation. Foreign Language Annals, 45(S1), s163–s183. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=75051845

Kelly Hall, J. (2001). Methods for teaching foreign languages. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Language Testing International. (2004). ACTFL proficiency description. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from http://www.languagetesting.com/scale.htm

LeLoup, J. & Ponterio, R. (2000). Enhancing authentic language learning experiences through internet technology. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from the Center for Applied Linguistics http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0002enhancing.html

Malone, M., Rifkin, B., Christian, D,. & Johnson, D. (2005). Attaining high levels of proficiency: challenges for foreign language education in the United States. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from the Center for Applied Linguistics http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/attain.pdf

Marcos, K. (n.d.) Foreign language standards. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from the Center for Applied Linguistics http://www.cal.org/resources/archive/rgos/flstandards.html

Minnesota Department of Education. (2007). World languages. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from the Minnesota Department of Education http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Academic_Excellence/Academic_Standards/World_Languages/index.html

Morrison, S. (n.d.). Resources for elementary school foreign language programs. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from the Center for Applied Linguistics Web site: http://www.cal.org/resources/archive/rgos/fles.html#intro

Ñandutí. (2006). Project Funder. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from the Center for Applied Linguistics' Ñandutí http://www.cal.org/earlylang/about/project_funder.html

National Board For Professional Teaching Standards. (2007a). Become a candidate: Available certificates. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from the National Board For Professional Teaching Standards http://www.nbpts.org/become_a_candidate/available_certificates1/fields_of_certification

National Board For Professional Teaching Standards. (2007b). Become a candidate: The benefits. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from the National Board For Professional Teaching Standards http://www.nbpts.org/become_a_candidate/the_benefits

National Board For Professional Teaching Standards. (2007c). Become a candidate: fees and financial support. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from the National Board For Professional Teaching Standards http://www.nbpts.org/become_a_candidate/fees_financial_support

National Board For Professional Teaching Standards. (2007d). Languages other than English/early adolescence through young adulthood. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from the National Board For Professional Teaching Standards http://www.nbpts.org/for_candidates/certificate_areas1?ID=16&x=40&y=13World

National Council of State Supervisors for Languages. (2007). Statement on the study of foreign languages in elementary schools. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from the National Council of State Supervisors for Languages http://ncssfl.org/papers/index.php?elementary

National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center. (2003). About our work. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from the National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center http://nflrc.iastate.edu/about.html

National Language Conference (2005). A call to action for national foreign language capabilities. White paper presented at the 2005 National Language Conference. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.nlconference.org/docs/White_Pap

National Virtual Translation Center. (2007a).Critical languages. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from the National Virtual Translation's Center's Languages of the World http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/criticalLanguages.html

National Virtual Translation Center.(2007b). Languages in American schools and universities. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from National Virtual Translation's Center's Languages of the World http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/USschoollanguages.htm

National Virtual Translation Center. (2007c). Language learning difficulty for English speakers. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from National Virtual Translation's Center's Languages of the World http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/learningExpectations.html

National Virtual Translation Center. (2007d).World languages. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from National Virtual Translation's Center's Languages of the World http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/worldlanguages.htm

Pufahl, I., & Rhodes, N. C. (2011). Foreign language instruction in U.S. schools: Results of a National survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals,44, 258–288. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=62187329

Richards, H., Conway, C., Roskvist, A., & Harvey, S. (2013). Foreign language teachers’ language proficiency and their language teaching practice. Language Learning Journal, 41, 231–246. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87821125

Scebold, E. & Wallinger, L. (2000). An update on the status of foreign language education in the United States. NASSP Bulletin 2000, 84 . Retrieved November 16, 2007, from http://bul.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/84/612/1

Sigsbee, D. (2002). Why Americans don't study foreign languages and what we can do about that. New Directions for Higher Education, Issue 117 . Retrieved November 11, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10212635&site=ehost-live

Suhay, L. (1999, October 17). Education: Striving to meet foreign language standards. New York Times. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E0D81330F934A25753C1A96F958260

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (n.d.) The earth's linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=18391&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

United States Department of Education. (2006). Improve student performance: Teaching language for national security and American competitiveness. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from the United States Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/academic/foreign-language/teaching-language.html

United States Department of Education. (2007). National Security Language Initiative Brochure. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from the United States Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/nsli/nslibrochure.html

University of the State of New York Board of Regents. (1996). Learning standards for languages other than English (Revised edition). Retrieved November 17, 2007, from the New York Department of Education http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/lote/pub/lotelea.pdf

Washington Association of Foreign Language Teachers. (2006, April 26). Standards. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from the Washington Association of Foreign Language Teachers http://www.waflt.net/standards.html

Suggested Reading

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (n.d.) ACTFL performance guidelines for K-12 learners. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3327

Bollag, B. (2007).MLA report calls for transformation of foreign-language education. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 , A12-A12. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25407961&site=ehost-live

Burke, B. (2006). Theory meets practice: A case study of preservice world language teachers in U. S. secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 39 , 148-166. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20488356&site=ehost-live

Campana, P. (2007). Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions. Modern Language Journal, 91 , 721-722. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27355799&site=ehost-live

Center for Applied Linguistics (n.d.).National K - 12 Foreign Language Survey. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from the Center for Applied Linguistics http://www.cal.org/projects/flsurvey.html

Draper, J. & Hicks, J. (2002, May). Foreign language enrollments in public secondary schools, fall 2000. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from the National Virtual Translation Center http://www.actfl.org/files/public/Enroll2000.pdf

Ervin, G. (1991). International perspectives on foreign language teaching. Chicago, Illinois: National Textbook Company.

Gilzow, D. (2002). Model early foreign language programs: Key elements. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from the Center for Applied Linguistics http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0211gilzow.html

Hubert, M. D. (2013). The development of speaking and writing proficiencies in the Spanish language classroom: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 88–95. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87293795

Morrison, S. (n.d.) Introduction. In Second language teaching methodologies. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from the Center for Applied Linguistics http://www.cal.org/resources/archive/rgos/methods.html

National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC). (n.d.). The essentials of language teaching. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from http://nclrc.org/essentials.

Portland Public Schools. (n.d.). Immersion Program Brochure. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from the Portland, Oregon Public Schools http://www.otl.pps.k12.or.us/.docs/_sid/389a01d0c5333381c431e4dd2e0543f6/pg/11938

Rodgers, T. (2001). Language teaching methodology. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from the Center for Applied Linguistics http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/rodgers.html

Rojas Tejada, A., Cruz del Pino, R., Tatar, M., & Jiménez Sayáns, P. (2012). 'Spanish as a foreign language' teachers' profiles: Inclusive beliefs, teachers' perceptions of student outcomes in the TCLA program, burnout, and experience. European Journal Of Psychology Of Education—EJPE (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.), 27, 285–298. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=78163465

Rosenbusch, M. (Ed.). (1997). Bringing the standards into the classroom: A teacher's guide (2nd ed.). Retrieved November 12, 2007, from the National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center nflrc.iastate.edu/pubs/standards/guide.pdf

Savignon, S. (1987). Communicative language teaching. Theory Into Practice, 26, 235-242. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5200164&site=ehost-live

Zhou, B.,& Fu-quan, C. (2007). On the promotion of intercultural communication competence. Sino-US English Teaching, 4 , 77-81. Retrieved November 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27070951&site=ehost-live