State and Local Policy on the Study of World Languages

Abstract

State policies that impinge upon the study of foreign languages have been largely the domain of educational agencies. These policies frequently respond to events with little thought to necessary supportive relationships. Thus we now see a spate of mandates for programs in elementary schools with no policy for the preparation of teachers for those grades. We see rationales built upon global competition and a response of two years of study for less than an hour a day. In addition, foreign language planning is often the indirect result of larger, more general policies. In recent years, foreign language study has been mandated as part of policies aimed at higher college admission standards, for desegregation purposes, or for international development. None of these address the realistic potential or the value foreign language study might contribute.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. A Guide to Curriculum Development in Foreign Languages (Hartford: State of Connecticut Board of Education, 1991), p. 63.

2. Jamie B. Draper , Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1989 & Fall 1990 (Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1991), tab. 3.

3. Data reported at a presentation to Tennessee's state legislature by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, 1987.

4. Academic Preparation for College: What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do (New York: College Board, 1983).

5. June K. Phillips , “Language Instruction in the United States: Policy and Planning,” in New Perspectives and New Directions in Foreign Language Education, ed. D. W. Birckbichler (Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook, 1990), p. 63.

6. The following data are from Phillips, “Language Instruction,” p. 64 and Jamie B. Draper , Dreams, Realities and Nightmares: The Present and Future of Foreign Language Education in the United States (Washington, DC: Joint National Committee for Languages, 1991), pp. 4-27. States with current admission policies for foreign language study included California, Florida, Georgia, New York (Regents Diploma), Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Requirements were also in effect for entry to the University of Colorado, the University of Delaware, the University of Indiana, the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, Louisiana State University, the University of Minnesota (a proficiency requirement), the University of Montana, the University of Utah, and the University of Wisconsin at both Madison and Milwaukee.

See also Penelope M. Early , “The Teacher Education Agenda: Policy Arenas and Implications for the Profession,” in Developing Language Teachers for a Changing World, ed. G. Gunterman (Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook, 1993), pp. 7-22.

8. Robert LaBouve , “Proficiency as a Change Element in Curricula for World Languages in Elementary and Secondary Schools,” in Reflecting on Proficiency from the Classroom Perspective, ed. J. K. Phillips (Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook, 1993), pp. 31-54.

9. Tennessee , Acts 1986, chap. 801, 1-8.

10.

10. Ibid., 2.

11.

11. Draper , Dreams, Realities, pp. 5-19.

12.

12. For an overview of two major European language plans, LINGUA and ERASMUS, see Charles Barrière , “A Linguistic Response to `Europe, 1992': The LINGUA Program,” in International Perspectives on Foreign Language Teaching, ed. G. L. Ervin (Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook, 1991), pp. 20-28.

13.

13. See the results of a survey of businesspeople in Carol Fixman, The Foreign Language Needs of U.S.-Based Corporations (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1989).

14.

14. Janet Swaffar , “Using Foreign Languages to Learn: Rethinking the College Foreign Language Curriculum,” in Reflecting on Proficiency, ed. Phillips , pp. 55-86.

15.

15. Richard D. Lambert , The National Foreign Language System (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1989), p. 8.