School District of Clayton

World Languages and Cultures Curriculum Committee

&

Major Contributors for 2008-2010 Report Work

Reinhard Andress Parent - CHS graduate

Sarah Bernard Parent - Meramec/Wydown/CHS

Elizabeth Caspari World Languages and Cultures Coordinator

World Languages and Cultures Department Chair - CHS

French Teacher - CHS

Susan Christopher World Languages and Cultures Subject Manager - Wydown

Spanish Teacher - Wydown

Glenn Cody German Teacher - CHS

Former World Languages and Cultures Coordinator

Milena Garganigo Assistant Principal - Wydown

Sarah Gottemoeller Spanish Teacher - Meramec

Micah Johnson Spanish Teacher - Wydown

Gwen Kennerly Spanish Teacher - Glenridge

Stephanie Martín Spanish Teacher - CHS

Lorie Madriz World Languages and Cultures Team Leader - Wydown

Spanish Teacher - Wydown

Heather Mullins Spanish Teacher - CHS

Heather Puerto Spanish Teacher - Wydown

Stephanie Roberson Spanish Teacher - Captain

Table of Contents

School District of Clayton

District Mission Statement ............................................................................................................. 2

District Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................. 2

District Kid Check Statement ........................................................................................................ 2

World Languages and Cultures Program ................................................................................................... 3

Mission Statement .......................................................................................................................... 3

Enduring Understandings ............................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Study Topic #: The Elementary Spanish Program ..................................................................................... 7

Section 1: History and Philosophy ................................................................................................. 7

Section 2: Key Components of the Elementary Spanish Program Today ................................... 12

Section 3: World Language Instruction in American Elementary Schools ................................. 15

Section 4: Additional Questions from the Board of Education ................................................... 18

Section 5: International Trends in World Language Instruction.................................................. 23

Section 6: Assessment of the Elementary Spanish Program ........................................................ 27

Study Topic #2: Technology Use in World Languages and Cultures ...................................................... 37

Section 1: The Current State of Technology Use ........................................................................ 37

Section 2: Room for Improvement............................................................................................... 39

World Languages and Cultures Plan for the Work .................................................................................. 44

Work in Progress: District Long-Range Goals ............................................................................ 44

Future and Continued Work: Recommendations from our Studies ............................................. 44

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 45

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix A: Sequence of Courses .............................................................................................. 47

Appendix B: Timeline of New Courses, Trips and Study Topics ............................................... 52

Appendix C: Site Visit Report by Former Coordinator Glenn Cody ........................................... 55

Appendix D: Elementary Parent Survey ...................................................................................... 59

Appendix E: STAMP Results ...................................................................................................... 71

Appendix F: Teacher Technology Surveys .................................................................................. 75

The School District of Clayton

District Mission Statement

The School District of Clayton will strive to develop in all its children the strength of character,

the skills, the knowledge, and the wisdom necessary to build creative, productive lives and to

contribute to a global society.

District Guiding Principles

As a public school system dedicated to the education of all children who come to our schools,

the School District of Clayton makes decisions using the following guiding principles:

● The primary responsibility of our schools is teaching and learning.

● Every member of the school community is both a learner and a teacher.

● The individuality of every learner is recognized and welcomed.

● The school culture nurtures both the joy of learning and the satisfaction of achievement.

● Decisions are based on the best interests of students, balancing individual and group

needs.

● We value all members of our learning organization and demonstrate honesty, respect,

and trust in all of our relationships.

● Our schools promote equitable access to educational opportunities.

● We encourage effective partnership with parents and the broader community.

● We allocate our resources in a prudent manner consistent with our principles and goals.

● Our shared vision of education empowers us to explore, experiment, and grow.

● Effective assessment informs our decisions.

● Learners accept responsibility for their learning and feel confident in their ability to

create a positive future for themselves.

● We provide a solid academic foundation, a broad choice of programs, and maintain high

standards for all learners.

● We are committed to diversity in our school population because it enriches or lives,

mirrors our world, and reflects our future.

● We strive to develop thoughtful citizens who contribute responsibly to their global

community.

District Kid Check Statement

―We are responsible for student learning by knowing students well, by valuing every child, by

placing students at the center of every decision.‖

2

The School District of Clayton

World Languages and Cultures Program

Mission Statement

We believe that the study of a second language should be an integral part of the education of all

students. We are committed to teaching students to communicate in oral and written language, and,

through this focus, to helping students gain a knowledge and appreciation of other cultures in the global

community. Furthermore, we believe that learning a second language enhances thinking skills and

broadens future career opportunities and personal interests.

World Languages Enduring Understandings

A number of years ago, the world language instructors formulated three enduring understandings for

our department. For the uninitiated, an enduring understanding is a concept, theme or idea that is central

to a particular discipline and as such pervades the entire curriculum. It is these key ideas or ―enduring

understandings‖ that we hope will remain with our students throughout their lives, long after the

material and structures have faded from their memories. Our deliberations were soul searching and

enlightening as we grappled with the very essence of our subject matter. We have reviewed and

reconsidered them each year since 2002, and we believe that they still adequately describe what we are

striving to impart to our students in every language and on every level:

Learning about other cultures benefits us as individuals as well as our society as a whole.

We hope to kindle in our students a life-long interest in and appreciation of other cultures. Interest and

appreciation go far toward promoting tolerance and understanding. If language study achieves nothing

else, it is extremely valuable for this reason alone.

Language reflects the essence and perspective of a people and their culture.

Many aspects of a culture can only be understood through the language. One can't claim to truly know

France, for example, without understanding French.

Certain linguistic structures and vocabulary are required for effective communication in and

understanding of a second language.

There is indeed a ―knack‖ to develop proficiency in another language, a set of structures (e.g. verb

conjugations, syntax) and vocabulary (basic words and phrases) that make communication possible.

Although different for each language, this set of structures is absolutely necessary for basic proficiency

in any of them. Ideally, we would like for all of our students continue to practice and improve their

second language skills throughout their adult life. Realistically however, we know that most will not be

so diligent. It is our hope, therefore, years from now, when all of those verbs and nouns are just a distant

memory, that our students will still retain some sense of just what it takes to learn a language. In this

way, they will definitely have a tremendous head start if their career or personal interests ever require

them to master the rudiments of any other language.

3

Introduction

World Languages and Cultures last presented a full report to the Board of Education in 2004, followed

by a preliminary round for this report in 2008. In the interim, our curricular area has gone through

extensive changes and undertaken a number of large-scale endeavors, most of which were envisioned at

the time of the 2004 report.

Status of Recommendations from the 2004 Report

At the conclusion of our 2004 report, we proposed seven recommendations/goals that became the focus

of our work since then. What follows is a brief discussion of the progress we have made:

Retain current (1994) structure of the elementary Spanish program. We still believe that we do not

have the personnel and resources to offer daily Spanish instruction in grades one through five. The

schedule has changed somewhat since 1994, but this was an initiative on the part of the elementary

principals in response to a need to restructure the elementary school day.

Continue to examine and evaluate “national” assessments (particularly for elementary) as they

become available. We have just completed an exhaustive examination of everything currently

available (please see ―Assessment‖ in Study Topic # 1). We have found an assessment tool that is

given nationally to a significant number of language students and have begun a multi-year pilot in

Spanish.

Work with the Wydown administration and world language instructors to reconsider the option

of offering a choice of languages in grade six. 6th graders may now choose between continuing their

study of Spanish or beginning a new language, French. To date, we restructured the entire French

program at Wydown; 6th and 7th Grade French together cover the French I curriculum, and 8th Grade

French is equivalent to French II. Beginning this year, these students have entered Intermediate French

A (formerly French III) in grade nine. As part of this process, we also decided to offer Spanish I and

French I in grade eight. To date enrollment has resulted in one 8th grade French I class in 2009-2010

and one 8th grade Spanish I class this year. This option remains under review.

Make a concerted effort to inform parents about our curriculum and methodology. Since 2004,

we have shared course level student outcomes as well as other course specific information at open

house and on our various websites. The material we have submitted for the Build Your Own

Curriculum (BYOC) initiative will offer complete information on line concerning every aspect of our

curriculum.

Continue to develop and offer educational travel experiences to both European and Latin

American destinations on a regular basis. We have offered several trips to overseas locations such

as: Germany, France, Spain, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico and Italy. We strongly believe in the value

of these experiences for our students, and we will continue to offer these trips. We anticipate adding a

trip to China in the foreseeable future.

Consider adding a less commonly taught language to our program, specifically an Asian

language. This has been our major endeavor since the 2004 report and involved a three-year study of

the feasibility of offering Mandarin Chinese at CHS. When the popularity of Chinese spiked across the

country, many districts hastily implemented programs, only to see them collapse within two years

4

because of inadequate planning. Adding an Asian language is not as simple as adding, say, Italian. The

language, particularly its writing system, is completely different, and the amount of time necessary for

American students to achieve any level of proficiency is considerably longer. As a result, many aspects

of the curriculum, its methodology and assessment provide a unique set of challenges. Locating a

qualified instructor, someone who speaks the language fluently and who can work effectively with

American high school students, was also an issue to be researched and considered. We spoke with

professionals around the country, visited flagship programs in St. Louis, Chicago and Minneapolis, and

studied applicable research literature. In 2008-2009, we offered our first Chinese I courses, one at CHS

and another in grade eight at Wydown. In 2009-2010, we changed Chinese at Wydown to better meet

the needs of the younger students and split the Chinese I equivalent across 7th and 8th grade Chinese.

This year we have added Chinese III at CHS.

Reach out to our colleagues in other disciplines in an effort to help them understand the value of

world language education. While most of our colleagues value our instruction, there are still those

who lack awareness of the benefits of sustained instruction in world languages. We need to continue to

work to market our discipline and to pursue interdisciplinary opportunities. In recent years, our teachers

have invested significant amounts of time in a number of interdisciplinary endeavors that help us to

reach out to both other colleagues and to share our students’ successes with parents. The Wydown Art

Shows that Spanish and French teachers have produced in conjunction with the art teacher are a prime

example. We at CHS, working in conjunction with the teacher of English Language Learners, have

recently launched World Languages and Cultures Day. Both of these initiatives are interdisciplinary in

nature and reach out to students, parents, and our colleagues.

Brief Update since our Last Report

Since 2004, the World Languages and Cultures program has engaged in an ongoing process of

improvement that has included revising some courses and creating others. During the time since our last

report we have started to phase out German and phase in Chinese. In French, we instituted language

choice beginning in the 6th grade. In Spanish we reworked the shorter sequence at CHS to allow our

students who did not go through the long sequence to become more successful. As a result, we currently

offer 44 courses from the elementary level through Wydown and CHS. Of these, 20 courses are in

Spanish, 11 in French, 7 in Latin, 5 in Chinese and 1 in German. The existing Scope and Sequence of

Courses by Language and a Timeline of New Courses, Trips and Study Topics can be found in

Appendices A and B.

What Happened to German?

For as long as most of us can remember, second language study in the US was a matter of selecting

among French, German and Spanish. Latin was also available in selected districts both public and

private. Since the 1960's, Spanish has dramatically increased its ―share of the market‖, while French

and especially German have experienced a corresponding decrease in the number of students who elect

to study those languages.

Understandably, German was not a very popular language immediately following World War II. It had

been completely eliminated in most schools throughout the country. The Cold War and Germany's

pivotal position as a divided nation at the very center of the conflict did help to restore an interest in the

language, although it never ceased to be a struggle to reestablish German courses or to keep small

programs going. Many hoped that German reunification in 1990 and the leading economic role it

5

enjoys in Europe today would help its standing in the world languages arena. Unfortunately, just the

opposite has occurred; with reunification the tension and attention of the world was shifted elsewhere.

In the process, Germany became just another European country. Since 1990, German enrollment has

gradually declined across the US. In many districts, the emerging popularity of Asian languages,

notably Japanese and Mandarin Chinese, has served to eliminate many struggling German programs.

German enrollment in Clayton, while high in the 1990's, has experienced a similar decline since 2004.

When we failed to attract enough students for a seventh grade class or for a German I class at CHS two

years in a row, it was clear that we would not be able to sustain the program. Glenn Cody agreed to

instruct the remaining 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 classes, German IV and Advanced Placement, via the

Internet from Stephenson, Michigan. This year, the AP class will be offered for the final time.

While we are deeply saddened to witness the demise of German language study in Clayton, we realize

that the world has changed, and that it is indeed time that our language offerings reflect the realities of

the 21st century. Clearly, the People's Republic of China has become a major player on every world

stage, and Chinese is a language that is spoken by over one billion people. It deserves a place in our

department.

6

Study Topic # 1:

The Elementary Spanish Program

The World Languages and Cultures Curriculum Committee (WLCC) has focused on the elementary

component of our long sequence Spanish program as the main area of study for this year's report. When

we proposed this focus, we had a number of our own questions that we wished to explore. As the Board

of Education added their questions to our list, it became clear that it would be necessary to review the

history and goals of the original program in order to fulfill the requests of the Board. In response to

Board questions, this report thus includes much more extensive historical information than is commonly

provided.

Departmental Research Questions for Elementary World Language Instruction:

National and international trends (an examination of flagship programs around the country). What

are the characteristics of a quality program with respect to curriculum, frequency and quality of

instruction, and assessment? What kind of training do teachers receive? How do high quality

programs retain high quality instructors?

Assessment vehicles – What is currently available? Are these national assessments appropriate for

our program?

Elementary language instruction at Clayton – What is our program like today, and what would it

take to make it better? Would a partial immersion program be feasible for our district?

Articulation with middle and high school level language programs – What is the impact of the

elementary Spanish program on secondary instruction?

Board Research Questions for Elementary World Language Instruction:

What does the latest brain research tell us concerning the best time to teach a world language?

Why is it better to have a dedicated classroom for Spanish?

Will students be fluent in Spanish by the end of 5th grade?

Is the elementary Spanish program rigorous?

The Elementary Spanish program began in 1995 with the implementation of first grade at all three

elementary schools. The elementary Spanish team developed, refined and implemented the curriculum

for subsequent grade levels yearly, culminating in implementation of the 5th grade component in 1999.

Curriculum and instruction for all grade levels have been continuously revised, refined, monitored and

improved. Over the years, members of the elementary Spanish team have undergone professional

development, visited model programs in a number of states, and created assessment tools to evaluate

our students and program. In addition, a number of neighboring districts have come to Clayton to visit

our elementary Spanish program including: Parkway, Ladue, Orchard Farms and MICDS. Since our last

report to the Board the WLCC has studied national assessment tools for Spanish and identified the

Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency (STAMP) test as a useful tool. We are currently piloting

this assessment.

Section 1: History and Philosophy

Much has changed since the elementary Spanish program was first proposed to the Board of Education

in May of 1994. The following summarizes the history and philosophy of the original proposal and the

changes and modifications that have brought us to today.

7

In 1991-92, a Glenridge Advisory Committee survey of parents indicated a strong interest in including

World Language instruction as part of the school day. At that time, Glenridge parents were sponsoring

a French club that took place outside of school hours, and there was a CHS teacher who had extensive

experience in elementary French instruction. As a result of the collaboration among our district’s

administration, the WLCC, Glenridge parents and Principal, Phyliss Stoecklein, a pilot program in

French was implemented for all kindergarten students in the spring of 1993. After months of research,

study, site visits and district-wide focus groups, a proposal to extend the FLES (Foreign Language in

the Elementary School) program to Meramec and Captain schools’ was presented to the Board. The

following statement of philosophy and beliefs appeared in the 1994 proposal:

Communication is a fundamental part of the human experience; therefore every Clayton student should

have the best opportunity to become proficient in a language other than his own. Being able to

understand and communicate in a second language is an important life skill in an increasingly

multicultural society and the global marketplace. Knowledge of a second language brings an

appreciation of other peoples and cultures that other disciplines cannot fulfill. Competence in more than

one language is key to shaping human thought and culture. Children who study a second language gain a

sense of achievement and develop critical thinking skills. All areas of discipline that are deemed

important to a child’s education are introduced in the elementary school curriculum. We propose a

second language program for all Clayton students that will support the goals, philosophy and skills of

other curricular areas. The members of the Foreign Language Department hold the following beliefs

about foreign language study in the elementary schools:

All children can achieve a certain level of proficiency in a foreign language.

Foreign language learning should be a part of every child's educational program.

A foreign language should be part of the culture of the school.

Foreign language learning should take place within the context of the classroom curriculum.

Instruction must be regular and frequent.

Instructors must be highly proficient in the target language.

Instructors should have expertise in the teaching of elementary school age children.

Curricula should be designed so that every child can succeed.

Instruction should start as early as possible.

Students should continue to study the same foreign language for as long as possible.

Language Choice

The choice of language for the elementary program became a controversial issue in 1994. The pilot

program had begun in French at Glenridge in January 1993 and continued for the 1993-94 school year.

The original proposal was that Glenridge continue its French program and Spanish be taught at both

Captain and Meramec. However, the Board decided in favor of just one language, Spanish, at all three

schools. It was believed that the parents would prefer the same program at each location.

Key Components of the Original Proposal

The following elements were deemed essential elements of a high-quality FLES program:

Highly qualified instructors.

Daily instruction during the regular school day.

Commitment from administrators, principals, and all classroom teachers to Spanish instruction.

8

A curriculum for all children.

A curriculum that is integrated with the existing curricula of other discipline areas.

Very close cooperation between Spanish and classroom teachers.

Classroom teachers who stay in the classroom at the time of Spanish instruction and learn along with

their students.

Classroom teachers who reinforce Spanish at other times during the school day.

Spanish teachers who are assigned to one elementary school only.

Sufficient time in the daily schedule for Spanish teachers to meet with and observe others.

Sufficient funds to support a sequential, integrated Spanish program from elementary through high

school.

Proposed Curriculum

The following excerpt from the original proposal describes the then envisioned elementary Spanish

curriculum.

We envision the curriculum of the program as a spiral. Vocabulary, concepts, skills and cultural topics

will be revisited from year to year, but with increasing complexity. Students will learn the necessary

communicative skills to function effectively and appropriately in the target language and culture. For

example, topics would include talking about family, physical characteristics, everyday needs, leisure

time, classroom management and so on. However, the bulk of the curriculum will reflect and support the

content, skills and concepts covered in other discipline areas. Listening and speaking skills will be

emphasized especially in the primary grades, but reading and writing skills will be used to support oral

skills. It should be expected that a student's receptive skills, listening and reading will be developed

more quickly than the productive skills, speaking and writing. Grammar structures will not be taught per

se, but students will learn how to use various structures in order to communicate effectively.

Since time on task in this program is limited, only 20-30 minutes per day, fluency in a second language is

not a reasonable goal. Even in immersion programs, it takes most students many more years to become

fluent in both oral and written language. Proficiency, on the other hand, the ability to communicate

effectively and appropriately in a variety of situations, is a much more attainable goal for this type of

program. Proficiency is a continuum on which will be found a range of achievement.

This is an accurate description of the enacted curriculum of today, with the exception of the statement:

"the bulk of the curriculum will reflect and support the content, skills and concepts covered in other

discipline areas." While there are many parts of the curriculum with strong content connections we feel

it is inaccurate to state that the ―bulk‖ of Spanish instruction is content based.

Proposed Methodology

The following excerpt from the original proposal describes FLES teaching methodology :

Teachers use the target language almost exclusively and make linguistic modifications when necessary to

make the target language more comprehensible to students.

Teachers make regular use of visual aids, props, realia (genuine articles from the target culture),

manipulatives, facial expressions and body language to convey intended messages.

Teachers provide many hands-on experiences with the target language in both written and oral form.

9

Teachers enhance and accelerate student communication by teaching functional chunks of language

rather than concentrating on discrete vocabulary items.

Teachers monitor their students’ comprehension through various interactive means such as TPR – Total

Physical Response.

Teachers use the language experience approach to reading instruction (Children's literature in the target

language is constantly present in the classroom and serves as a model for stories created by the students

to read and retell to one another.)

Because our curriculum is primarily content-based, teachers draw many of their techniques from the

elementary school methodologies in use.

Teachers use target language games, finger plays, poems, books and songs exclusively with the students.

In addition to the methods outlined above our teachers routinely incorporate the use of technology in

their classes. The Smart Board is used on a daily basis to review class routines such as the date and

weather, and to engage students in songs, authentic videos, interactive games and learning activities.

Implementation Timeline

Spring 1993 French pilot program is implemented at Glenridge for all

kindergarten students. Funding continues for the 1993-1994

school year for kindergarten and first grade students

Fall 1993 All Glenridge first grade classes and one multi-age, first-

second grade class receive twenty minutes of daily instruction

in French.

Spring 1994 Glenridge kindergarten students begin daily French

instruction.

May 1994 The Foreign Language Curriculum Committee proposes

to extend the foreign language program to Captain and

Meramec schools.

June 1994 The Board expresses a preference for a Spanish program at all three

elementary schools and charges the committee to develop a revised

proposal that also reduces the number of teachers for program

implementation in 1995-1996.

Fall 1998 French pilot students continue French in grade six.

Fall 2000 First group of long-sequence Spanish students enter

Wydown Middle School.

Fall 2001 French pilot students enroll in French III at Clayton High

School.

Fall 2003 First group of long-sequence Spanish students enter Clayton High School.

Spring 2007 First group of long-sequence Spanish student’s graduate.

10

Historical Instructional Time

Elementary

Spanish (yr)

Grade

Days/Week

Duration

Total/Week

1995-1996 1 4 days 20 minutes 80 minutes

1996-1997 1, 2 4 days 20 minutes 80 minutes

1997-1998 1, 2, 3 4 days 20 minutes 80 minutes

1998-1999 1, 2, 3, 4 3 days 25 minutes 75 minutes

1999-2001 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 3 days 25 minutes 75 minutes

Instructional Time

The amount of instructional time has fluctuated since the program was fully implemented in 1999-2000.

Following complete implementation, then Assistant Superintendent Craig Larson agreed with the

concerns voiced by the three elementary Spanish instructors that three sessions per week for every

grade level created an excessive teaching load for just one instructor. From 2001 to 2008, the program

was administered according to the following schedule:

11

Section 2: Key Components of the Elementary Spanish Program Today

Instructors

When we proposed the program, we knew that one of our greatest challenges would be the recruitment,

training, and retention of staff qualified to teach elementary Spanish. We are pleased to have attracted

highly qualified, elementary Spanish instructors for each of the three schools. Our instructors are fluent

in the language and trained to be effective with young students. Moreover, they are each well-versed in

cultural knowledge pertaining to the Spanish speaking world. Retention of instructors at Meramec and

Glenridge has been excellent. At Captain, however, there have been six different Spanish teachers since

2001; this situation was detrimental to the instructional process, but has since been corrected. We have

had our current team in place for the past three school years. The three elementary Spanish teachers

have now formed a close-knit team and display a strong commitment to collaboration across buildings.

The Introduction of a Common Schedule

In 2008, the elementary principals worked together to create a common schedule in which students

receive 90 minutes of Spanish instruction per week from 1st to 5th

grade. During the 2010-2011 school

year, Meramec and Captain retained common schedules. The Glenridge schedule sustained some

alterations in order to accommodate a fourth 1st grade class.

1st grade Spanish at Glenridge is held twice a week for 30 minutes, totaling 60 minutes of instruction

per week. It is worth noting that students are removed from specials for strings instruction in 4th and 5th

grade. The amount of Spanish minutes missed varies from building to building, creating inequities in

the amount of instruction that students receive.

Methodology

The elementary Spanish team is very mindful about the blend of experiences that are provided for

elementary learners. Activities are developmentally appropriate for each level and rooted in the FLES

training provided by Concordia University in Moorhead, Minnesota.

Each class is fast-paced and includes five or more activities. Students are given exposure to:

• culturally appropriate songs and stories designed to promote vocabulary mastery and communicative

skills.

• whole group instruction, self-directed learning opportunities, and group and center-based work.

• activities designed to develop students as Spanish readers and writers.

• information about Hispanic cultures and daily life as well as authentic experiences such as art projects,

food tasting, and cooking activities.

We encourage administrators and Board members to visit so that they can see first-hand what our

program is like. Students are able to achieve the learning outcomes for the day while speaking in the

target language as much as possible.

12

Curriculum

We have designed and continue to refine a curriculum to meet the needs of all language learners. It is

developmentally appropriate at every grade level and has been carefully crafted so that all children can

be successful. The Spanish curriculum also reinforces the basic concepts from other disciplines. For

example, when first graders study insects in science, they also learn the names of insects in Spanish and

how to describe them. Such connections are strongest in grades one through three, but are also present

in grades four and five. The following chart outlines which topics are explored in each grade level.

Due to the recent significant changes to the elementary science and social studies curricula, a number

of Spanish units no longer make an explicit core content connection. Considering this and the incoming

testing data, the elementary Spanish team will work with the science specialist and science and social

studies coordinators to address curricular changes.

Current Goals

Our current goals continue to reflect those in the original 1994 proposal which culminate in: ―a

sequential, integrated Spanish program from elementary through high school.‖ We want our students to

develop the cultural competency and communicative skills necessary to function effectively and

appropriately in the target language and culture. In the elementary Spanish program, students take their

first steps toward second language proficiency and intercultural competency. In order to become global

citizens, we believe that all students should engage in sustained study of one or more languages beyond

13

their native language. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) National

Foreign Language Standards includes a Statement of Philosophy with which we fully agree:

Language and communication are at the heart of the human experience. The United States must educate

students who are linguistically and culturally equipped to communicate successfully in a pluralistic

American society and abroad. This imperative envisions a future in which ALL students will develop and

maintain proficiency in English and at least one other language, modern or classical. Children who

come to school from non-English backgrounds should also have opportunities to develop further

proficiencies in their first language.

As our nation shifts to a perspective that prioritizes cross-cultural understanding, world languages have

a key role in our schools. Our program certainly continues to focus on movement across the proficiency

continuum, as opposed to fluency, as a key goal. However, it is important to understand that language

production is only one aspect of our curriculum. ACTFL established national standards for foreign

language learning and organized language instruction goals according to a model called the "five C's":

Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Communities. Viewed from this perspective,

it is clear that global competency is central to world language instruction, and the goals of such

instruction must include a focus on intercultural communication and learning about other cultures. The

Asia Study publication, Going Global: Preparing Our Students for an Interconnected World (2008)

provided the following illustration of the nationally accepted ACTFL goals of language instruction:

Communication. Students learn to communicate with real people in another language by engaging in

conversations, sharing presentations, by providing and obtaining information from one another, by

expressing feelings and emotions, by asking questions, and by exchanging opinions.

Gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures. Proficient language teachers ensure that

language study fits into a broader agenda, that of interpreting cultural meanings in the speeches,

products, behaviors, norms and traditions of everyday life. They make language a vehicle, rather than

an end in itself.

Connect with other disciplines. Student’s best learn language when it is integrated into material they

are already studying. The student who is studying Ellis Island and U.S. immigration might lead a

simulation in Russian to practice his question-asking skills.

Develop insights into the nature of language and culture. Once a student studies a world language, he

or she becomes acutely aware of the complexity of the structure of language itself, of etymology, and of

the culture within which the language under study emerged.

Participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world. There's nothing more exciting

for a student of a world language than to be able to converse with native speakers to read the language.

Such personal and interactive uses of world language take language study far beyond the classroom and

become meaningful experiences for life.

Our intent remains to provide students with a firm foundation for continued language learning in hopes

that they eventually will use their language skills and cultural knowledge for their own goals, whether

personal or professional. The decision to start Spanish in elementary school ensures Clayton students a

global quality education on a level that is denied to most public school students in the United States.

14

Section 3: World Language Instruction in American Elementary Schools

The Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, DC released the results of their National K-12

Foreign Language Survey in 2008. The statistics for language instruction in American elementary

schools represented a disappointing decline in the percentage of schools that offered second language

programs:

● The percentage of private elementary schools offering second language instruction decreased from 53%

to 51% from 1997 to 2008.

● The percentage of public elementary schools offering second language instruction decreased from 24%

to just 15% from 1997 to 2008.

● Considered together - 31% of all American elementary schools offered second language instruction in

1997. By 2008, just 25% of American elementary schools continued to do so.

One third of the public elementary schools which responded to the survey remarked that No Child Left

Behind legislation had an adverse affect on foreign language study; more minutes were devoted to

tested subjects at the expense of second language programs.

In the mid 1990's, the WLCC studied four internationally recognized elementary language programs in

Springfield, MA, Pinellas County, FL, Ferndale, MI, and Windsor, Ontario. Of these four only the last

two remain in full operation today. The Springfield program is in the process of being phased out, a

victim of budget constraints, and the program in Pinellas County was for a time reduced to a 15 minute

video segment that was broadcast to all elementary classrooms. Pinellas County also experienced

fiscal difficulties. However, two schools in Pinellas County continue their language programs; Perkins

Elementary offers daily Spanish lessons taught by a nationally known team of native speakers and

Dunedin Elementary School’s Dual Language Program is an educational model that combines native

English speakers with native Spanish speakers for all or most of the day. The goal is to promote high

academic achievement, English and Spanish language development and cross-cultural understanding.

The survey also reported on the languages that are taught nationwide; of those elementary schools that

still offer second language instruction, 88% teach Spanish and 11% teach French. Chinese, although

still small, has grown dramatically in the past ten years from .3% to 3%. German is taught in just 2% of

the schools, and an additional 2% offer a host of other less commonly taught languages such as

Hebrew, Greek and American Sign Language. The sum of these percentages exceeds 100 because some

elementary schools offer more than one language.

Three Models of Elementary World Language Instruction

Our in-depth study of elementary second language programs encouraged us to revisit the three

instructional models that have been used with great success in the US since the 1960's.

FLEX (foreign language experience or exploratory)

As the name implies, FLEX programs are designed to acquaint the student with the language and

culture of one or more languages. They offer a very minimal foundation in the target language(s),

sometimes just very basic vocabulary and phrases. The goals of such programs include instilling an

interest in language(s) and culture(s) as well as a desire to undertake a more formal study in the future.

Typically, the curriculum is closely aligned to social studies, science and language arts outcomes. In

most cases, a specialist delivers the curriculum, and the time allotted to this instruction ranges from 2%

15

to 5% of the elementary weekly schedule (Lipton, p. 16). Of those elementary schools that offer second

language instruction, 42% of private schools and 48% of public schools follow the FLEX model.

FLES (foreign language in the elementary school)

In these programs, one language is taught sequentially for two or more years, and the main goal of the

program is to provide a good foundation in all four language abilities (reading, writing, speaking and

listening) Most of these programs, like our own, are closely tied to the outcomes of social studies,

science and language arts. A specialist delivers the curriculum, and the time allotted in most districts

ranges from 5% to 20% of the elementary weekly schedule. Of those elementary schools that offer

second language instruction, 56% of private schools and 39% of public schools follow the FLES

model.

Immersion and Partial Immersion

The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) defines immersion and partial immersion programs as

programs that allow the students to learn the regular school curriculum in the world language. The

world language becomes the vehicle for content instruction, but not the subject of instruction. Children

acquire the language through interesting and meaningful activities as they learn the concepts of the

various subjects included in the elementary curriculum.

Total Immersion – Programs in which all subjects taught in the lower grades (K-2) are taught in the

foreign language; instruction in English usually increases in the upper grades (3-6) to 20%-50%,

depending on the program.

Partial Immersion – Programs in which up to 50% of subjects are taught in the foreign language; in

some programs, the material taught in the foreign language is reinforced in English.

Of the elementary schools that offer second language instruction, 2% of private schools and 13% of

public schools follow an immersion model.

Our Study of Immersion and Partial Immersion Programs

When we were preparing for the report, we decided to look more closely at the partial and total

immersion models of language instruction for several reasons. We understand that scheduling at the

elementary level is a challenging situation, to say the least, because each discipline can make a

convincing case for requesting a greater share of the precious few minutes that are available each day.

We wanted to find out if teaching traditional elementary subjects in the foreign language would allow

us to accomplish two goals simultaneously. We also knew that students enrolled in an immersion

program achieved proficiency in the language at a faster rate than in a FLES program (our current

model). We wanted to see one of these programs in action and talk to the teachers.

Specifically, we went with the following questions in mind:

Can elementary students really ―pick up‖ a language without formal instruction and do they learn to

speak the second language correctly?

Are they able to express themselves and communicate at a high level?

Do the students master as much of the traditional elementary curriculum in a second language as

they do when the language of instruction is English? (i.e. how do they do in math, science, etc)

Do they fall behind in their English literacy skills?

16

Do students who experience difficulty mastering a particular subject area in English have even more

trouble in another language?

Could we better meet the needs of our students in Clayton by adopting an immersion or partial

immersion program?

We received permission and funding to study two flagship immersion programs in Fairfax County, VA

and Montgomery County, MD. Not only are these programs internationally renowned, they have been

in existence for over thirty years. We were privileged to spent a full day in each district where we

visited classes and discussed the programs with administrators and program supervisors. Please see

Appendix C for a detailed report of our visit.

Our team from Clayton consisted of:

Shawn Boedefeld – elementary classroom instructor at Meramec

Glenn Cody – coordinator and German/Spanish instructor at CHS

Sarah Gottemoeller – elementary Spanish instructor at Meramec

Lorie Madriz – Spanish instructor at Wydown

Effects of the Immersion Programs

Both of the districts that we visited shared the overwhelmingly positive outcomes of the programs.

Simply stated, in the experience of these programs, there are no adverse affects on English literacy, and

all the components of elementary curriculum are covered and mastered at the same speed and depth as

in English-only program. Teachers are able to differentiate their instruction as required, and those who

find a particular subject challenging in another language will continue to find it difficult in English.

Standardized test scores for the immersion students were as good as if not better than their monolingual

counterparts.

It is interesting to note that both the districts that we visited used internally created assessments to

evaluate their immersion programs. They both noted that there were no nationally-normed tests

currently available that fulfilled this objective for elementary students.

Immersion for Clayton?

Our experiences in Fairfax County, VA and in Montgomery County, MD taught us what immersion is,

as well as what it isn't. Although its implementation can earn a lot of minutes for other disciplines in

the elementary schedule, saving time should not be the main reason for adopting this model. Nor is it

possible to combine just social studies and Spanish in grade three, for example, and still meet the

objectives of both. These programs are therefore not a ―quick fix‖ for our elementary schedule.

An immersion program must have a life of its own, and must arise from a genuine desire on the part of

parents, teachers and administrators to offer the students in their community an enrichment program of

this caliber. It is most effective as a separate track for those students who voluntarily participate in the

program. It must begin in kindergarten or grade one and be staffed by instructors who are completely

fluent in both English and the target language.

Our team was overwhelming impressed with the programs we visited, and we certainly look forward to

the day when we might consider developing such a program for our own district. It is no small

undertaking, to be sure, and as we look toward the future, we have identified the following

considerations:

17

Staffing – although staffing costs typically don’t change, recruiting costs and difficulty would have

to be considered as it would be necessary to hire elementary teachers who could impart the

curriculum of one or more subject areas in the target language.

Space – an immersion program would require dedicated classrooms with all signs and posters in the

target language only.

Materials – everything from textbooks to workbooks to a variety of other materials all in the target

language.

Commitment – from parents, principals and the other instructors in the building to commit to and

support the program.

Scheduling – this could be difficult, as some students would be enrolled in the program while

others would not. In a partial immersion situation, both groups would attend their English language

subjects together.

Articulation- students enrolled in the elementary program will need to have specialized classes in

middle school to transition to the high school language classes.

Elementary Goals Related to Curriculum & Research

Continue to research and monitor elementary language trends, particularly those related to instructional

models and choice of language.

Monitor the emergent trend of Chinese in the elementary schools.

Visit the elementary immersion school that has opened in St. Louis.

Revisit and revise the elementary Spanish curriculum.

Section 4: Additional Questions from the Board of Education

In addition to the questions we have already answered via the history and program overview, there

remain a few additional questions that we need to address directly.

What does the latest brain research tell us concerning the best time to teach a World Language?

In most American school districts, students have to wait until middle school before they study a second

language. Only 25% of elementary schools actually offer this instruction. Why do we continue to

believe that Spanish should be taught in the first grade? Older children seem to be more efficient

learners after all; can't we cover more material with 7th graders than we can with first graders? While

some may find this a compelling reason to wait until middle school to begin a language, the same case

could be made for math, science and any other elementary discipline. Why start so early? The reasons

for beginning math in grade one is by and large the same reasons for beginning a second language as

early as possible. Elementary students not only study the curriculum, they learn how to learn. In the

early grades they study numeracy, one of the building blocks for proficiency in mathematics. Our

Spanish students master elementary vocabulary and structures that serve as building blocks for more

sophisticated expression later on. In both disciplines, these are components that can and should be

mastered as early as possible. Our students don't leave grade five as extremely proficient Spanish

speakers, but neither are they extremely proficient mathematicians. What they have gained, however,

18

is a foundation that should enable them to progress further and faster by grade twelve than if they had

begun the study of either discipline in grade seven.

But what does brain research add to our picture? Since the 1960s, the concept of a critical period for

language acquisition has been explored by numerous researchers. The recent methodology text,

Teacher’s Handbook: Contextualized Language Instruction, cites Lenneberg’s work (1967) suggesting

that biologically the time between ages 2 and puberty is critical for language development. The claim,

which was documented by neuropsychology studies into the late 1990s, was that the young brain was

―malleable and shaped by its own activity, while the brain of an older learner is stable and not as

equipped to reorganize itself‖ (Shrum & Glisan, 2010, p. 108). The question of brain plasticity

continues to interest neuroscientists but it would be difficult to say that there is complete agreement on

the topic. Newer research seems to trend in favor of the brain being more plastic or malleable than

previous researchers thought. This does in fact mean that students can learn languages later in life,

however, that was already known. Nonetheless, research still indicates that an earlier start leads to

greater ease of learning and for some areas improved achievement.

Although there are other factors related to success in language acquisition, recent studies have

confirmed that “age of acquisition is reliably the strongest prediction of ultimate attainment” of

language (Birdsong, 2006, p. 12). One of the claims of the Critical Period Hypothesis that has been

widely corroborated in research studies is the role of age in the acquisition of pronunciation and

“accent.” The work of Scovel (1999) and others (Long, 1990; Thompson, 1991) has confirmed that

language learners who begin as children are able to achieve a more native-like accent than those who

begin as adolescents or adults (Shrum & Glisan, p. 109)

Similarly, Shrum & Glisan cite a body of recent research showing that young learners tend to achieve

higher levels of competency in terms of grammar and syntax. Of particular note is a study ―that

documented greater gains in both speaking and writing for students who began Spanish in kindergarten

as compared to their counterparts who began language in sixth grade (Dominguez & Pessoa 2005 as

cited in Shrum & Glisan, 2010, p. 109). We will not attempt to list all of the proven benefits of starting

early language instruction. Suffice it to say that the updated brain research findings regarding plasticity

do not refute the earlier studies suggesting young learners have particularly malleable brains. Rather,

the latest research on brain plasticity shows that older learners can certainly expect to be able to learn,

but we may need to teach them in significantly different ways than their younger counterparts.

Why is it better to have a dedicated classroom for Spanish?

Actually, the original proposal called for close cooperation between Spanish and classroom teachers.

There was to be no dedicated classroom for Spanish instruction; the program was designed so that the

Spanish teacher would travel with a cart from room to room. For the first six years of the program, the

Spanish instructors did indeed travel from classroom to classroom. Each teacher received a cart and

transported all materials: maps, posters, worksheets and instructional aides. It was hoped that the

classroom teacher would stay in the classroom and learn the language along with the students.

Classroom teachers would then be able to reinforce the Spanish vocabulary throughout the day in other

subjects as appropriate. Unfortunately, the realization of this goal eluded us from the very beginning.

During the first years of implementation, the Spanish instructors noted that most of the classroom

teachers made good use of this time to take care of other responsibilities. In all honesty, this is

completely understandable. Given the full schedule at each of the elementary schools, the classroom

teachers need this time to prepare for their own instruction. This reality was one of the reasons that the

Spanish instructors eventually requested, and were granted, their own classroom in each building.

19

Since that time, students come to the Spanish classroom for instruction. While this arrangement is not

how we had originally envisioned the program, it has allowed the instructors to create a ―cultural

island‖ in each building, a dedicated space with posters and other realia all in Spanish. When the

students arrive, they know that they are entering a different world where the language of instruction

and interaction is Spanish. A separate classroom also allows the instructors to have all of their materials

at hand, if they need to make a last minute change in a lesson plan or to answer a question by using a

visual aid. Although the Spanish instructors are unanimous in their preference for this arrangement,

there have clearly been some trade-offs. The Spanish instructors are now delivering their curriculum in

relative isolation from the rest of the school, and the program lacks the close collaboration and

cooperation with the classroom teachers that was originally envisioned.

Will students be fluent in Spanish by the end of 5th grade?

The elementary Spanish curriculum is designed in accordance with standards provided by ACTFL as

well as FLES (Foreign Language in the Elementary School). Instruction is meant to reflect the way

children learned their first language. The focus during the first year of language learning is to build

comprehension skills and to master isolated words, phrases, and concepts. First, students build listening

skills. They begin communicating with one word at a time, then two words, then short phrases, then

original expressions. While some students can begin to produce language almost immediately after

entering a Spanish classroom, other students need a great deal of processing time before being able to

produce the language on their own. By the end of 5th

grade, the set of skills that students possess

(speaking, reading, and writing) are considerably more advanced than they were at the 1st grade level.

Fluency, or the ability to deliver information quickly and with expertise in Spanish, is a goal that is

unrealistic at the elementary level for several reasons. Before beginning to speak their first language,

children received constant input from their surrounding environment. The learning objectives that are

currently part of the elementary program are consistent with amount of minutes received in a FLES

program, rather than the amount of instruction that students would receive in an immersion or partial-

immersion setting. Students are expected to become proficient to the best of their abilities at using the

specific set of skills that they are taught during each thirty-minute class.

Since we first proposed the program, we have tried to be clear that the anticipated progress of our

students is directly linked to the time invested. In order to meet proficiency-oriented goals aligned to

the aforementioned Standards for Foreign Language Learning, experts suggest that classes meet 30-40

minute daily, but no fewer than three times per week (Curtain & Dahlberg as cited in Shrum & Glisan

2010, p. 89). Our program, which only attains 90 minutes, falls into the author’s category of low-

intensity programs, for which it is suggested that one would have to downwardly revise the goals.

Recent studies using the STAMP test have supported the theory that such gains in program time lead to

gains in performance (Falsgraff 2010). Furthermore, we have found that although our students do not

graduate 5th grade as proficient as their counterparts in more intensive elementary programs, we can

demonstrate achievement gains later in our long sequence program that far outstrip what our students

were able to do previously. For example, we now regularly have a few students achieving successful

grades of 4 and 5 on the AP Spanish Language exam as sophomores; prior to the long sequence

program, there were no sophomores even eligible to take the AP Spanish Language class.

20

Is the elementary Spanish program rigorous?

The question of rigor in our elementary program is a complex one. Because world language instruction

encompasses multiple goals, it is often the case that different stakeholders approach the issue from

different perspectives. For a parent who is focused strictly on fluency development, it can be frustrating

to realize that an elementary student devotes time to building vocabulary prior to being able to carry on

long conversations. Another parent may be more interested in development of appreciation for other

cultures and feel that more time in English would be an efficient way to learn more about Hispanic

cultures. Conflicting concepts of what program goals should be can lead to differing impressions about

the rigor of the program. Our survey, covered in the following section, tells us that some parents find

our program to be too difficult whereas others would like it to be more rigorous.

Differing priorities of stakeholders notwithstanding, it is important to note that the elementary Spanish

program was deliberately designed to meet the needs of all students, not just a select few who might be

gifted in language. The ultimate goal is for every student to be successful, based on the beliefs that any

student can learn another language and that all students need to know about other cultures. At this

level, Spanish grammar is not a focal point; the focus is on culturally embedded, age-appropriate

activities that encourage students to express themselves in another language. This is methodology that

is unfamiliar to most adults, many of whom were taught foreign languages via various forms of

decontextualized grammatical drills or rote memorizations of dialogues. Those methodologies did not

produce good results for previous generations of language learners, and research has since led our

discipline to new options. Communicative strategies such as we now employ were chosen to make

language learning seem more relevant and accessible to our students. Moreover, we cannot put aside

exploration of cultural connections in favor of pushing students to more rapidly "cover" additional

grammatical concepts. The cultural information that we teach is as important as the linguistic skills. In

fact, for some students, the cultural concepts may be the primary enduring understandings retained.

All in all, the question of rigor may be best answered by our new assessments. Initial and longitudinal

data from our ongoing STAMP pilot will be useful for helping us to calibrate the level of rigor for our

elementary program. However, our parent survey, which follows this section, informed us that most

parents are hoping that our teaching focuses on simple, basic Spanish skills. This would seem to

indicate that we are essentially on the right track, even if we have some adjustments in rigor that could

be made.

Elementary Survey Results

In late May 2009, elementary parents were invited to complete a survey on the elementary Spanish

program (see Appendix D). The survey focused on three main areas:

● parents’ experiences with and perceptions of second language learning

● teacher communication with parents

● parent expectations from the program

Of the 833 email surveys sent, we had an 18% reply rate (148 responses). It was reassuring to hear that

the vast majority (93%) of our parent population agree, 79% of them strongly, that they value second

language learning at the elementary level. Moreover, 58% of our parents indicated they would like to

learn more about a full or partial immersion program option. A full 75% of parents would like to learn

about summer opportunities for language learners. In response to the parent interest in summer

opportunities for language learners, we plan to propose a summer Spanish program for elementary

21

students. These figures offer an interesting response to the Board question as to whether we have work

yet to do to meet the demand of our population for language instruction.

Expectations from our program varied significantly from parent to parent, but there were nonetheless

some patterns that emerged. 87% consider that improvement of spoken Spanish is very important and

79% of parents consider working on writing in Spanish to be important. In terms of what they expect,

we might have had better results if we had not allowed this to be a write in, but had offered a check list

with rankings. Some confusion resulted from the fact that parents sometimes used terms like ―basic‖

and ―fluency‖ both separately and in conjunction. When we coded the responses, we came up with the

following responses as to what parents hoped that their children would derive from the program:

59% Basic skills

21% An appreciation for language learning

19% An appreciation for other cultures

6% Fluency

It was gratifying to see that parent expectations for our program were very well aligned with what we

believe about language instruction. If we consider the aforementioned national goals for language

instruction, it is clear that the parent expectations for our elementary program directly address three of

the five goals:

Communication.

Gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures.

Connect with other disciplines.

Develop insights into the nature of language and culture.

Participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world.

This finding leads us to believe that our idea of appropriate objectives for world language learning is

fairly well aligned with the parents' concept of the same.

Although all of the responses were valued, some data was not clear enough for us to base decisions

upon it. For example, we had a number of write-in responses off of the topic posed where parents had

conflicting views. Whereas 10 parents thought our program should be more demanding, 2 requested

that it be less demanding. More homework was a request by 5 parents. Parents were evenly split (3

each) on the question of whether our program had not enough or too much time devoted to it. Two

parents requested that we consider an alternate program for native Spanish speakers. These responses

are not clear cut enough on which to base decisions, but do give us an idea of what questions we need

to consider for future discussions with parents.

Overall we can do better in our communication with our parent population. Although 50% of parents

do feel well informed about what is happening in their child’s Spanish class, 44% do not. That said, it

may require some experimentation to determine what mode of communication will improve the

situation. Like all Clayton teachers, the elementary teachers have websites, but 47% of our parents

indicated they didn’t know the websites existed. The results indicated that parents would prefer to hear

about our program via email or classroom newsletter. In addition, 79% of parents would like to see

more examples of student work and assessments from Spanish class.

22

In response to these findings, the Spanish teachers have already made a number of changes and will

continue to look for ways to improve communication. For example, the teachers have made sure to

include updates in the existing building newsletters. One teacher had a number of parent volunteers

respond to what she wrote for the first newsletter of the year, which told her the strategy was working.

As the Spanish teachers try various strategies to improve communication with parents, they share best

practices across the buildings. When one teacher developed her web site significantly, she found that

the increased content led to increased use of the site. Since some parents indicated they would visit the

web site more often if more information were provided, the elementary teachers all upgraded their

websites to include a FAQ page, a curricular overview by grade level, homework information and a

calendar of cultural opportunities. Currently, one elementary teacher has collected emails and is

sending monthly grade-specific email updates to parents about what their child is studying, ways they

can practice at home, and multicultural events around St. Louis. This strategy will be monitored to see

if it should be adopted in other schools. We were also pleased to hear that parents would be willing to

attend a parent forum or discussion night. We have tentatively scheduled one for the evening of

January 26th. We anticipate that this forum will provide us additional feedback that we can use to

improve our program and our communication with parents.

Elementary Goals Related to Survey

Improve the quality and frequency of communication with parents and the school community.

Host an elementary Spanish parent forum to gather additional parental input on our program.

Propose an elementary Spanish summer program.

Section 5: International Trends in World Language Instruction

When the WLCC proposed to focus the bulk of our review on our elementary program, we indicated

that we intended to take a look at international trends, not just the national ones. A Board request was

that we also give an idea of how foreign language assessment is viewed outside of the United States.

World Language Instruction World Wide

It's no secret that second language instruction and availability in the United States lags well behind that

of other countries. Consider the following:

2/3 of the world's population is bilingual* / 1/3 is monolingual

53% of Europeans are bilingual

9% of Americans are bilingual

In 2001 the Council of Europe recommended that all European students become proficient in three

languages: their own, English, and the language of a neighboring country.

200 million Chinese are currently studying English.

In Spain, second language instruction now begins in pre-school, and most other European countries are

making plans to begin instruction earlier than grade four.

Almost 1500 public and private schools in the US now offer language instruction prior to grade seven.

By 2020 at least one in five US jobs will be directly tied to international trade.

*Bilingual in this context refers to a level of proficiency in a second language that would enable the speaker to live, work

and function effectively in a country where that language is spoken.

23

It is also interesting to note at what age second language instruction begins in other countries. As a

point of comparison, most students in the United States receive their first opportunity to study a second

language in grade seven. The following chart based on from information from the report "Foreign

Language Teaching: What the United States Can Learn From Other Countries" provides this

information for nineteen countries (2000).

Country First Foreign

Language

Starting Age Additional

Languages

Australia French 6 German, Greek,

Italian, Japanese

Austria English 6 French, Italian

Brazil English 11 or 12 Spanish, French,

German

Canada French 10 German, Spanish,

Italian, Japanese,

Mandarin, Chinese,

Punjabi

Chile English >12 French, German,

Italian

Czech Republic English and German 9 Russian, French,

Spanish

Denmark English 10 German, French,

Spanish

Finland English 9 Swedish, German,

French, Russian,

Spanish, Italian

Germany English 8 French, Spanish,

Russian, Italian,

Turkish

Israel English 10 Hebrew, French,

Arabic

Italy English 8 French, German,

Spanish, Russian

Kazakhstan English 10 German, French

24

Luxembourg German and French 6 or 7 English, Italian,

Spanish

Morocco French and English 9 or 10 Spanish, German

Netherlands English 10 or 11 German, French

New Zealand French >12 Japanese, Maori,

German, Spanish

Peru English >12 French, German

Spain English Pre-school French, German,

Italian, Portuguese

Thailand English 6 French, German,

Chinese, Japanese,

Arabic

United States Spanish 14 French, German

Assessment Abroad

Other countries do not face the same program assessment issues we face. Most countries have a

national curriculum, and they employ either the same or similar textbooks and methodology in every

school. Language proficiency is tested along with all of the other subjects in a series of nationally-

normed tests that indicate very clearly how each program or school is faring.

In 2001, world language instructors from 31 European countries came together in Strasbourg, France to

develop common guidelines for developing curricula, improving methodology and standardizing

assessment. Their report entitled Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, Teaching, Assessment establishes new standards and recommendations for all nations that are

members of the Council of Europe. One of their endeavors, Linguafolio, proposes a student portfolio

that would indicate the student's level of proficiency in terms that every world language instructor in

every country could easily understand. Our curriculum committee studied this document in 2006, and

all of our instructors attended a seminar at Saint Louis University that helped us become even more

familiar with what our colleagues are doing overseas. In fact, we have not yet ruled out incorporating

elements of this assessment into our ever evolving suite of assessments for our department.

How Is World Language Learning Assessed?

ACTFL provides guidelines that are now used to some extent nationwide, for gauging the proficiency

of K-12 learners. It bears repeating that the focus of this assessment model is proficiency, which is also

what we hope to achieve through our long sequence program. Traditionally, the majority of available

foreign language assessments have focused on achievement. The various language associations have

25

long had tests available nationally to measure student achievement in terms of whether they had

learned discrete vocabulary and grammar items. However, there was disagreement in the field as to

whether those were really the right types of assessments for our discipline. Once ACTFL developed

guidelines for proficiency assessment, it opened the door to some needed assessment change in our

discipline. ACTFL guidelines focus on measurement of the following:

Comprehensibility: How well is the student understood?

Comprehension: How well does the student understand?

Language Control: How accurate is the student's language?

Vocabulary: How extensive and applicable is the student's vocabulary?

Cultural Awareness: How is the student's cultural knowledge reflected in language use?

Communication Strategies: How does the student maintain communication?

Based on the above criteria, each student's proficiency can be ranked as novice, intermediate or

advanced; each level is further subdivided into low, medium or high. The simplest way to

conceptualize the differences between these achievement levels is as follows:

novice learners function at the word level

use memorized utterances

may be somewhat unintelligible to a native speaker

intermediate learners function at the sentence level

can create with language, but mostly in a reactive mode

can manage basic social and travel situations

advanced learners function at the paragraph level

can narrate in present, past and future

can navigate unfamiliar contexts using strategies

can handle school and work contexts

So what is realistic for our students? The research clearly demonstrates that students who begin their

language study in elementary school (typically three 30 minute sessions per week) generally perform at

the Intermediate High or Pre-Advanced level by the time they graduate from high school. For point of

comparison, Advanced Low status is required for entry into teacher training programs. Educated native

speakers typically are rated at a further level of Superior. Those who are not able to begin their study

until grade seven can expect to reach only the Intermediate range by grade twelve (Jensen, Sandrock,

2007).

What tells us we haven’t set the bar too low?

For too long, our discipline was unable to prove that our assumptions regarding the necessary time to

achieve each proficiency level were anything other than an educated guess. Fortunately, in view of the

increased emphasis on assessment and the recognition of our critical need to develop speakers of other

languages, the federal government funded some much needed studies. In particular, from 2005-2008,

the government supported the New Jersey Department of Education in assessing the language

proficiency of 60,000 8th grade students. The information resulting from this program, which used the

STAMP test, has since been used to help other states establish their own standards and assessment

models.

26

For nearly a decade, the New Jersey Department of Education has been working to ensure that all

students learn a foreign language as one of their graduation requirements. Currently, students can fulfill

the requirement for high school graduation through 5 credits or a Novice High on the proficiency exam.

Data from the federal project ―showed that ―programs offering a minimum of 540 hours of articulated

instruction in classes that meet at least three times a week throughout the academic year produce a

majority of students who can speak at the Novice-High proficiency level or higher.‖ (NJ World Class

Standards—World Languages). New Jersey suggests that if schools would devote the time in

elementary school, this requirement could be fulfilled and surpassed early on. They suggest the

following as realistic benchmarks for students in long sequence programs:

Intermediate-High Level: Students beginning the study of a second language in a program that meets a

minimum of three times a week for 30 minutes during elementary school and a minimum of five times a

week for 40 minutes during middle school and high school, should meet the cumulative progress

indicators for the Intermediate-High level by the end of grade 12.

Advanced-Low Level: Heritage students and students who have significant experiences with the

language outside of the classroom should meet the cumulative progress indicators for the Advanced-

Low level by the end of grade 12.

So how does that align with our experience? Our long-sequence Spanish students are indeed more

advanced by the time they reach the high school than they were before 2002, when most students

encountered the language for the very first time in grade seven. They arrive in grade nine knowing so

much more than before; our eleventh and twelfth grade offerings (e.g. Advanced Placement Spanish

Language, Popular Culture of Contemporary Spain, Cinema and Literature for Spanish Conversation,

etc.) are actually university level courses in terms of the proficiency required for successful completion.

Our Spanish instructors also tell us that they can move much quicker and cover the curriculum in more

depth on both the middle and high school level than ever before. In addition, they report that our long-

sequence Spanish students are not at all reticent about expressing themselves in the target language,

because they have been doing so since they were six years old.

Some of our long-sequence students decide to switch to French in grade six; others opt for Latin or

Chinese in grade seven (or German when it was available in the past). These instructors have also

noticed that it is possible to move more quickly with these beginning students than before; this is proof,

we believe, that students’ have also mastered the mechanics of how to learn a language as a result of

their elementary Spanish experience. It is our belief that the benefits of the elementary program are

better demonstrated by what it enables students to do by the end of high school than by what they can

do at the end of 5th grade.

Section 6: Assessment of the Elementary Spanish Program

During this curriculum review cycle, the Clayton Board of Education requested that we find some way

to assess our elementary program above and beyond the tests that our own elementary Spanish

instructors have created. This has historically been problematic for us due to both the nature of our

curriculum and the lack of nationally normed assessments.

On one hand, the very uniqueness of our curriculum has limited somewhat our choice of assessment

tools. When the program was begun, we did not adopt a prepackaged program and textbook, because

27

we wanted to design our curriculum to reinforce many of the outcomes in science and social studies.

While we continue to teach many of the same basic phrases and vocabulary that can be found in other

elementary Spanish programs, our alignment with other curricular areas is unique to our district. Since

an appropriate test must assess what is actually taught, we were understandably unable to find anything

on the market that assessed the unique components of our curriculum. At the time, we were focused on

assessing our students’ achievement in mastering our curriculum. For that reason, we designed our own

assessments that we believe adequately reflect the progress our students have made toward mastering

the Spanish outcomes for each grade level. Our research has shown that this approach is common

among elementary programs and has for a long time been the recommended practice in our field.

However, as interest in assessment has grown across our discipline, we now have additional options

available.

Another issue we had long encountered was that prepackaged elementary language assessments are not

nationally normed. None of the few elementary assessments that were available in the past would have

enabled us to compare our results with any other district, much less with other programs on a national

scale. Over the course of several months, we researched, examined and discussed every Spanish

assessment currently available. We did discover that the growing call for national assessments had

reached our discipline. However the development lags the demand, so the availability, while better than

when we began our program, still trails that in fields like English or math.

We began our work with a determination of what we needed to find in order to meet our needs and to

respond to the requests by the Board. We determined that our ideal assessment would definitely include

the following components:

be a nationally normed assessment

be developmentally appropriate and designed for elementary students

be an exam that is developed and graded externally

would assess Spanish competency for productive skills of speaking and writing as well as receptive

skills of listening and reading

be logistically feasible and affordable.

We also noted the following secondary considerations:

to provide versions for assessing the student over time through the sequence

to have a version for our other spoken languages.

Our investigations turned up numerous criterion-referenced assessments, but very little alignment with

our list of desired characteristics.

28

Major Available Assessments

Name of

Assessment

Age Designed

For

Skills Assessed Nationally

Normed?

External

Grading?

OPI

(Oral Proficiency

Interview)

Older students

and adults

Oral No

Yes

OPI Jr.

(Oral Proficiency

Interview Jr.)

Students K -12 Oral No

No

ELLOPA

(Early Language

Listening and Oral

Proficiency

Assessment)

Pre-K – 2 Listening/speaking No

No

SOPA

(Student Oral

Proficiency

Assessment)

Grades 5 -8 Listening/speaking No

No

COPE

(Center for Applied

Linguistics Oral

Proficiency Exam)

Grades 5 – 7

Students who use the

language at home or

have spent several

years in an

immersion program

Listening/speaking

plus specific content

from other subject areas

(e.g. science, social

studies, etc.)

No

No

National Spanish

Exam

Grades 6 - 12 Reading/listening/

grammar/vocabulary

Yes Yes

STAMP (Standards-based

Measurement of

Proficiency)

Grades 7 - 16 Reading/speaking/

writing

Yes

Yes

What assessment did we choose and why?

After looking extensively at several possible assessments, no one assessment met all of our criteria.

The one that most closely matched the criteria we were looking for was Avant Assessment's test, the

STAMP. The STAMP is a web-based, computer adaptive assessment that assesses a student’s skill in

speaking, reading and writing. According to the Center for Applied Second Language Studies

(CASLS), the research partner of Avant, a listening component for the STAMP is already in

development. Although the STAMP is not technically an elementary assessment, it is nationally

normed and an elementary version called the National Online Early Language Learning Assessment

29

(NOELLA) is currently being piloted. The STAMP is administered in schools in 35 states and has been

adopted by the Department of Education in 8 states as a statewide second language assessment.

Although an imperfect assessment tool for program evaluation, the STAMP is well suited to give us

information regarding development of student proficiency by skill. We anticipate that its greatest

benefits will come from longitudinal study of data.

The STAMP can be administered simultaneously to as many students as there are computers available.

There is a reasonable degree of correlation between the topics covered in our curriculum and those

assessed on the STAMP. In addition, the test is not based on any one textbook series. The computer

program assesses the student’s ability following each question and then chooses more or less

challenging follow-up questions as appropriate. The results are compiled and presented in a manner

that provide feedback concerning areas of strength and areas for improvement on both the individual

student level and on overall instruction. The assessment takes only 1 1/2 hours to complete and we can

compare our results with those of other programs around the country. There is a practice test and

Classpak materials to help both students and teachers to prepare for the format and delivery of the test.

In addition, the cost is under $20 per student.

STAMP Program Implementation

We received funding and approval to pilot the STAMP in the spring of 2009. In the fall of 2009, the

Wydown Spanish teachers purchased the Classpak and began preparing materials to familiarize

students with both the format of the test and how to take the test on the computer using the technology

required. Teachers invested a significant amount of time learning about the test and how to use the

Classpak. The Classpak materials provided sample reading items on various levels of difficulty as well

as sample speaking and writing prompts. Student preparation is routinely suggested by the test

publishers, as it is necessary to assure that students are not thrown by the format of the test. As part of

the preparation for giving the exam, we also organized a conference call with Kyle Ennis, the Vice

President of Education and Professional Development for Avant Assessment. He provided detailed

answers to a number of our pre-test questions. As this was a computerized test, we also involved

technology staff in preparation for implementing this assessment.

Teachers administered the STAMP test for the first time in January of 2010 to all 6th and 7th grade

Spanish students. Following the exam we brought Kyle Ennis to Clayton for a full-day professional

development workshop that was attended by all Wydown Spanish teachers, Meramec Spanish teacher

Sarah Gottemoeller, Assistant Principal and WLCC member Milena Garganigo and World Languages

and Cultures Coordinator Elizabeth Caspari. In addition, Assistant Superintendent Dottie Barbeau

joined the group for part of our day. The morning workshop, "Assessing our Assessments - Assessment

Foundations/Best Practice" was intended to assure that we understood the design of the STAMP test,

how to analyze our data, and how to fit the STAMP test into our overall assessment strategies. In the

afternoon we were able to address some of our questions about the test and reporting practices as well

as to do an accelerated introduction to "Avant STAMP - Rater Training," which helped us to

understand the inter-rater reliability measures in place for the hand-rated sections of the exam.

In addition to allowing us to answer our questions regarding logistical concerns about the computer-

adaptive test, this initial round of STAMP testing provides us a baseline for future analysis. The next

phase of the STAMP pilot is scheduled for late January or early February of 2011. The Spanish

teachers will again use the Classpak materials to prepare students for the assessment. The test will be

given to 7th and 8th grade Spanish students. This will allow for the collection of longitudinal data and

administration of the assessment to those for whom it was normed.

30

Feedback on the STAMP Pilot

Overall, the pilot of the STAMP met our expectations, but it did leave us with a few concerns. One

concern we have identified is the intended age of the test taker, which is presented as grades seven

through college. We went ahead and gave the exam to 6th graders because that is only a year younger

and would provide us with a measurement closer to the elementary program. However, we found that

many of the contexts of the questions (i.e. ―You are an exchange student in Madrid‖) are not

developmentally appropriate to actual life experiences of 6th and 7th graders. We also found the

English vocabulary in directions for some reading items to be developmentally inappropriate for

middle school students. After piloting the test, we discussed these concerns with the test publisher in a

special meeting. The publisher was candid that this test does indeed present some difficulties for

middle school students, but stated that other than 6th graders, for whom the test is not intended, the test

has been used successfully. For our next phase of the pilot, we will not be testing 6th graders. An

additional issue we had was that we had a high number of unratable samples for the speaking section.

Out of 74 samples, 15 speaking samples were unratable, which significantly reduced our pool of

samples. We are working with Avant Assessment to determine how we can avoid this in the future.

Avant identified two types of errors that took place, both of which can be fixed by changes in

proctoring. In a couple of cases, students recorded an answer with too much English to be ratable.

However, the bulk of the errors were due to student mistakes using the technology. The recordings

captured background sound but did not capture the sample. According to the company, this is common

when the technology is working but the students do not follow directions for playback of the sample

prior to submission. This is an error we can fix through additional pre-testing practice and changes in

our proctoring.

From our perspective, the STAMP reporting had some advantages as well as several drawbacks.

Initially, we were very impressed that Avant turned around all of our assessments, some of which were

hand-graded, in record time. We had some logistical issues with reporting features, but we are hopeful

that we can work those out over time. The STAMP is set up to report regarding individual students,

whole classes and the district. This is an important feature. These benefits notwithstanding, the format

in which the data was provided for the district results required extensive manipulation by hand. It took

a significant amount of manual data entry just to get to charts that would allow us to begin data

interpretation. Each additional round of queries has involved going back and doing additional hand

manipulation of data. This has been time consuming and has slowed the process of data analysis this

year. Assuming the continuation of our pilot is authorized, we would like to speed up some of our data

manipulation by importing STAMP figures into the Data Warehouse. This step would save us hand

entering certain types of data that we will need for detailed analysis. Just as frustrating was the fact that

following our January 2010 testing window we will not have 2010 national assessment results from

STAMP provider Avant Assessment until February 2011. This, although understandable, was not

something we had considered when setting our testing window.

31

Understanding STAMP Reporting

The STAMP is an externally graded, nationally normed and criterion-referenced test that is not tied to

any particular textbook. The benchmarks were established to take into account information from both

the ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the International Language Roundtable (ILR) guidelines.

Although each skill is graded against a benchmark that aligns directly to the ACTFL scale, it is

reported numerically. Thus the numbers given correspond to the previously explained ACTFL

proficiency guidelines as follows:

STAMP Level ACTFL Level

1 Novice Low

2 Novice Mid

3 Novice High

4 Intermediate Low

5 Intermediate Mid

In order to create a proficiency test that was both contextual and textbook independent, the creators of

the test did have to determine which thematic topics typically appear in early courses and in what order.

For this reason, they offer the following caution about the nature of the benchmarks:

"In some sense, the Benchmarks are arbitrary: There is nothing inherently more difficult about the topic

of health, for example, than the topic of community. Yet informed judgments by practicing teachers who

created and evaluated the Benchmarks tell us that topics and functions at lower levels are indeed

learned earlier than those at higher levels. Empirical data from assessments confirms that the hierarchy

represented in the Benchmarks does indeed reflect the order in which most students develop proficiency

in these areas." (Avant Assessment: Stamp Benchmarks)

This observation is important insofar as it addressed the ongoing concern we have had that

standardized tests might not be a good match to our unique curriculum. Essentially, it states that we

might well find that to be the case, but that the experience of the test developers was that there are

generally enough common themes in development of basic proficiency to validate this test.

An additional consideration that must be kept in mind when looking at STAMP reporting is that the

national norming is done for grades 7-16 and is not language specific in nature. National data is broken

out for European language grades 7-12 separately from that for students in higher education. Similarly,

Chinese and Japanese, as character-based languages, are reported separately from the European

languages of Spanish, French, German and Italian. We do not currently have national data for the 2010

test we took, so we used the 2009 European languages national data as a point of comparison. As soon

as the 2010 national data is released in February, we will do a new comparison.

STAMP reporting is done in a two-step process. The reports we receive give each student's STAMP

level in three skills: reading, writing and speaking. Reading is computer scored and thus immediately

available to the teacher. The writing and speaking, which are hand scored, are available within three

weeks of exam completion. In addition, the STAMP database retains the speaking and writing samples

of each student in case they are desired for longitudinal analysis.

32

Our STAMP Results in Grades 6 & 7 We first looked at our STAMP results to see how the students had done compared to what we

anticipated. Given the relative lack of research in our discipline, we had known from the beginning that

it would be hard to accurately project how our students would do. In goal setting, we referred to a

commonly referenced ACTFL chart to help us determine reasonable expectations. One limitation of the

chart below is that it is based on projections made by leading foreign language professionals from a

variety of levels and programs, but is not research based. A second issue is that it assumes a program

start in kindergarten and is geared for programs that include more minutes than our elementary

program.

Intermediate High

Intermediate Mid

Intermediate Low

Novice High

Novice Mid

Novice Low

K-4 K-8 K-12 9-10 9-12

Anticipated performance outcomes as described in ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners.

Nonetheless, we found it a useful resource for establishing some parameters. Given that our elementary

program starts in 1st grade and includes the fewest minutes recommended by ACTFL proficiency

guidelines, we determined that a good goal for the end of 6th grade would be Novice Mid and Novice

High for the end of 7th grade. Intuitively, we thought that the students’ receptive skills of reading and

listening (not tested) would progress quicker than their productive skills of speaking and writing.

However, we did expect that the emphasis on speaking would make that one of our better scores.

From the following chart (available larger in Appendix E) it is possible to see how the 6th grade

performed overall:

The vast majority of 6th graders received scores of 1 in reading, 2 or 3 for writing and 1 or 2 for

speaking. We were surprised to see the reading scores so low. Our follow-up told us that the reading

scores were the lowest scores nationally on the STAMP as well. We did wonder if the reading scores

might have been particularly low could be partially due to the fact that this test was designed for 7th-

16th graders. There were however a number of instances during the 6th grade exams when students

asked teachers to help them understand the meaning of English terms used in the test. Writing scores

came in largely at Novice Mid and High, which indicated; this was an area of strength and somewhat

33

higher than we had anticipated. Most students achieved Novice Mid or High on speaking as well, but

there were a few more students at Novice Low than we had anticipated. Of course, since this exam was

given at mid-year, it is also possible that more of those students achieved the goal level by year's end.

Nonetheless, teachers focused on teaching of reading and progress on spoken Spanish as areas where

the data shows we can do more.

The 7th grade scores showed movement towards the levels we anticipated but fell short of what we had

projected:

Clearly there are still higher levels than anticipated of students who scored a 1 (i.e. Novice Low level)

in various skills. However, it is clear that across skills, 7th graders scored better than 6th graders. Even

though these charts represent different groups of students, we did go ahead and make comparisons.

Although we can't draw too much in the way of conclusions, this is certainly positive information and

could be indicative of growth. Once figures are available, we will use this year's data to do longitudinal

study of last year's 6th graders. In the meantime, we did compare the levels by skill. Larger charts of

grade level comparisons by skill can be found in Appendix E.

There was a marked difference between 6th and 7th graders in speaking as the following chart shows:

Comparing the two groups, there were 71.7% of 7th graders were rated 2 or 3 in speaking, whereas the

6th graders had 86.7% of our students rated 1 or 2 in speaking.

The 7th grade reading scores remained lower than we had hoped, but improved over those in 6th grade.

34

There were 29.6% of 7th graders obtained a 3 in reading and another 13.6% got a 2, whereas the 6th

graders had 89.4% of our students rated 1 in reading.

In writing we did fairly well both years, but the 7th graders did push the achievement to a new level.

There were 93.3% of 7th graders obtained a 2 or better in writing, with 59.5% receiving a 3 and 2.7%

receiving a 4. This compares to the 6th graders who had 84.6% scoring a 2 or 3, but 51.3% of those

were 2's.

We can hypothesize from these figures that additional testing will confirm that our students are making

significant progress across all three skills made between 6th and 7th grades. We anticipate that our

longitudinal data will confirm this hypothesis.

Our Results Compared to 2009 National Data

For the national results, we compared our 7th grade Spanish 2010 test scores to aggregated Grade 7-12

National European-language scores from the 2009 test. This is not an ideal comparison, but we wished

to see if we could learn anything. Overall, our trends seemed to be in line with the national results, with

some exceptions.

Reading was both our weakest area and the weakest area nationally. We had 56.8% with level 1 scores

versus a national average of 47%. This information was tempered by the fact that on the higher end, we

had 29.6% with 3's compared to nationally 12% at level 3 and 4. For speaking, we also scored

significantly lower than the national results. Altogether 73.7% of our students came in at a 1 or 2

(mostly 2) versus 53% of national results were at the 3 level. It is not clear whether our unratable

samples would have had any impact on this or not. For writing, we fared somewhat better. Although

our scores were slightly lower than the national ones, our curve was quite similar. Nationally 86% of

scores were at the 2-3 level, which was comparable to the 90.6% for our scores. However, we did have

somewhat more at the 2 level than was the case for the 2009 national scores. Given that we had to

35

compare different test years and that the national scores include data from languages other than

Spanish, it would be premature to draw much in the way of conclusions from this data. However, it is

clear that our results, like those found nationally, showed obvious weaknesses in reading for the

students. That is concrete feedback that we can and will use to improve instruction. It runs contrary to

our hypotheses, which were that the receptive skills would be somewhat higher and the productive ones

lagging somewhat. Furthermore, we will be following up on the question of speaking scores. It

provides another area in which we could focus our attention.

STAMP Pilot Influences Curricular Change

Upon examining the results of several data points, the Spanish teachers at Wydown decided to make a

curricular change to try to achieve more balance in the four major language skills (listening, speaking,

reading, and writing) throughout the curriculum. The evidence indicated that the curriculum

concentrated on writing and speaking, especially using those skills in conjunction with the discreet

vocabulary lists and grammar concepts that were a cornerstone of the curriculum. The evidence

examined included the results of the pilot STAMP test that was administered in January, 2010. This

evidence was examined using the Data Wise process of ―What do you see? What do you make of it?‖

Other evidence examined included anecdotal (observational) evidence gathered on the three trips to

Spanish-speaking countries in recent years. The trips were to Costa Rica in 2006, Guatemala in 2008

and Mexico in 2010. The last evidence examined was regarding both formative and summative

assessment data gathered and discussed during our PLC work.

The teachers decided that they would use the commercially produced text during the 2010-2011

academic year as the primary text rather than as a supplement in order to see if they could develop

more of a balance among the skills. The texts and their ancillaries provide the opportunity for students

to listen to native speakers, both in the presentation of the material and in assessments, a broader

variety of level- and age-appropriate readings and culture components that include all Spanish-speaking

countries. By using the texts, the teachers hope to achieve a better balance among the four skills and to

focus learning more solidly on the side of communication rather than discreet vocabulary and grammar

concepts.

Assessment Goals

Although using the STAMP did not entirely correspond to all criteria sought by the WLCC, we are

pleased to have located a reputable national assessment that we can use to inform our practice. This test

provides us with a means to objectively view aspects of our program and to compare achievement of

our students to those nationally. We are committed to deriving every benefit possible from this data and

have several next steps in mind.

Conduct a 3-5 year trial of STAMP assessment of our Spanish learners at several points in our sequence.

Add STAMP to Data Warehouse to facilitate data analysis.

Continue to conduct research regarding appropriate, nationally-normed assessment at the elementary

level.

Pilot the elementary STAMP assessment (NOELLA) when it becomes available.

Begin STAMP testing in French and Chinese as well.

Investigate global competency assessments.

36

Study Question #2: Technology Use in World Languages and Cultures

Few would debate that the pace of technological change has outstripped the ability of many of us to

keep up. In World Languages and Cultures, as in many disciplines, teachers around the world initially

embraced the new era of technological change with a mixture of enthusiasm and skepticism. Early on,

foreign language teachers welcomed the Internet’s potential to bridge the distances between countries.

However, as communicators, there was also some reluctance to unleash students into a new

communicative world where spelling didn’t matter and anyone could present an ―expert‖ opinion. As

technology developed further, these objections were joined by questions about taking the time to teach

technology to our students, when it is not our end goal.

Times have changed, and we are changing with them. When the technology study topic was proposed,

we still had some teachers who were skeptical that most technology could produce benefits worthy of

the time investment. In order to ensure our instruction did not become outdated, we decided to

investigate how our teachers were keeping up with technology and to determine if any additional help

was needed. From surveys and discussions, we were able to construct an idea of not only the state of

technology use currently, but how we are helping one another to adapt to an atmosphere of continual

change.

The simple answer regarding current technology use is that it has captured the interest of our teachers,

who are hard at work to identify how it can be used to motivate our students and to help them to learn

better. Technology is now used in some form in all of our classrooms on a daily basis. Every teacher

has identified and learned to use several types of hardware and/or applications relevant to classroom

instruction. That said, a visitor to several of our classrooms would immediately also notice differences.

For example, some teachers have consistent access to Smart Boards and thus use them daily. Other

teachers use their data video projector and the computer labs regularly, but have not yet benefitted from

consistent access to Smart Boards. Some teachers engage their students in more technologically

sophisticated projects than others. Why the disparity? Are we addressing it effectively? What else

should we be doing?

Section 1: The Current State of Technology Use

A visitor to our classrooms today would see an array of technologies integrated into world language

instruction. Here are a few examples:

An elementary student leads the class from the Smart Board in saying and filling in the blanks in

Spanish for the day, month and year.

Students in Latin class design Roman villas using Google SketchUp.

Wydown Spanish students working in the computer lab; individually watch a video and record answers

to prompts online; the resulting audio files go directly to the teacher.

German students speak live with their teacher in Michigan via videoconference.

37

French students take a grammar pre-test using SMART Response clickers, and both teacher and students

get the feedback instantly.

An AP Spanish class working in the language lab listens to a radio broadcast, reads an article and then

records a verbal response synthesizing the two sources.

From our initial informal conversations regarding technology in 2008 to the surveys given in 2009 and

2010, we were able to discern a few patterns (see Appendix F). We found that for all languages, levels

and buildings, the following hold true:

ease of access is a primary factor in when teachers will attempt to use new technology

early adopters who can prove a benefit of technology use for student learning often teach their

colleagues, who are eager to reap similar benefits for their students

there is to some degree a natural progression of technological adoption, but the rate of change across all

teacher proficiency levels is accelerated by professional development that is specific to world language

instruction.

Across buildings, levels and languages, there have been certain obstacles that have impeded the

uniform acquisition of technological expertise by world language teachers. First, the gradual hardware

rollout in the district for such items as video projectors and Smart Boards, while logical and necessary,

resulted in temporary inequities in access. These inequities were exacerbated by the fact that so many

of our teachers are itinerant and their access often differs from room to room. It is clear from our

conversations and surveys that once desired hardware is readily accessible; our teachers are learning to

use it. Prior to 2008, there were many world language teachers who had no access to video projectors.

Now that almost every classroom has them, our teachers report that they use them routinely. Similarly,

teachers who have consistent access to Smart Boards this year report that they are either already using

them routinely or have connected with the technology staff to learn to use them. Moreover, we found

that as soon as a textbook included an online component, teachers were quick to work it into their

repertoire. Thus, our data confirms our initial suspicion that ease of access is of primary concern to our

teachers.

We have also found that providing the early adopters opportunities for professional development and

access to the tools they wish to use benefits their colleagues as well. Technology specialists have long

used the "train the trainers" model of professional development. We find that this works for our

department particularly well. Although not every teacher is able to attend each workshop or sit on the

technology committees, those who do are conscientious about bringing back their finds to their

department, team, or PLC. Essentially, the early adopter tests or pilots the technological solution to

which they were introduced. Whenever they have positive results, they share them with their

colleagues. These colleagues then sign up for training either with the early adopter or with the

technology staff. At the high school alone, 1/3 of the teachers in the World Language and Cultures

Department have standing appointments with technology staff to increase their technology proficiency.

This model allows us to efficiently encourage the adoption of those technologies, which show promise

for student learning. This two-tiered pattern of adoption in waves seems likely to remain for the

foreseeable future. Having proof that all of our teachers are consistently working to improve their

38

technological expertise has alleviated much of our concern about the disparities in technology use.

Although the technological level of expertise varies from teacher to teacher, all teachers have

demonstrated a commitment to developing proficiency in use of technology for instruction.

Section 2: Room for Improvement

All of which is not to say that we don’t have room for improvement. There are three main areas related

to technology use which offer clear opportunities for improvement:

sharing of best practices across buildings

determining where within our curricula we need shared technological experiences

support our instructors in identification and/or creation of ―transformative‖ technological solutions to

areas of need.

Sharing of Best Practices

Our first diagnosed area for growth potential is in sharing of best practices across buildings and levels.

Since we have ascertained that the efforts of our more technologically advanced teachers are

―contagious,‖ we feel that sharing what we are working on is particularly important. Anecdotal

evidence informs us that this sharing is currently taking place to some extent in our PLCs and at the

team and department level. As teachers participate in workshops and attend conferences, they are doing

a good job of sharing information with colleagues with whom they meet regularly. Where we lack

dissemination of ideas is across levels. Because of the current PLC based professional development

model, we currently have little if any time devoted to district-wide professional development for World

Languages and Cultures. This is an ongoing issue raised among teachers. This year our coordinator,

Elizabeth Caspari, decided to try two things in order to improve communication across our group; she

started a members-only wiki (site located at http://claytonworldlanguages.wikispaces.com ; access

upon request) and is producing a newsletter that includes material from our group. The expectation is

that these forums will encourage sharing of best practices and resources. These are only the initial steps

in sharing best practices.

Next, we hope to make use of both internal and external expertise in use of technology for world

language instruction. The next phase will include targeted teacher observations of how technology is

used in our discipline. Drawing from the successful lab classroom model, we are setting as a goal to

begin visits and videotaping of model lessons and best practices using technology for world language

instruction. In addition, we propose to bring in for a full day workshop Toni Theisen, the 2009 ACTFL

teacher of the year and a recognized expert in the use of technology for world language instruction. A

similar endeavor last year brought together all District world language teachers to study differentiated

instruction. Following the workshop, teachers were invigorated and a new level of sharing ensued.

Teacher evaluations indicated that they would like to have additional opportunities to participate in

professional development work with their colleagues from all languages and levels. For this reason, the

model seems a perfect fit to our technology work.

39

Assured Technological Experiences

The second area in which world language teachers could improve is in terms of providing assured

technological experiences for students. Currently, there are some consistent uses of technology,

particularly of online software, for students who have different teachers of the same course. For

example, at Wydown, if one Spanish teacher of a given course uses Quia (http://www.quia.com/)

regularly, typically the other teacher will provide practice as well. Similarly, at the high school, use of

the language lab is an assured experience for most of the spoken language courses. But this should not

be construed to mean that the majority of technological use falls in this category. Often, one teacher

will develop expertise with a technology that can help students to achieve a goal that another teacher

will lead them to achieve without technology. Traditionally we have respected the choice of the teacher

to achieve the outcome whatever way they choose. However, as we continue work within Build Your

Own Curriculum (BYOC), we will identify certain lessons as technology-rich experiences that each

student for that course must have, regardless of teacher. Those experiences will then be written into our

curriculum. We feel that now is an opportune time to begin this endeavor, since the Technology

Curriculum Committee is beginning an initiative to ensure teacher and student proficiency as

determined by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) national standards.

ISTE provides National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS) and National

Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS•T), both of which will become the basis for

upcoming technology work in our district. All Clayton teachers will be expected to demonstrate that

they are proficient in the use of technology to promote student learning. Those who are not yet

proficient will need to work to attain that level. The World Languages and Cultures program is already

working to develop the technological proficiency of our teachers, but alignment with this District

initiative should make the work proceed that much quicker. We anticipate being able to take full

advantage of upcoming District training opportunities in technology.

"Transformative" Use of Technology

The third area of technology use that provides room for growth is in the area of ―transformative‖ use of

technology, which is to say those that change the very nature of the learning experience. When teachers

first start using technology for instruction, they typically start with "adaptive" technologies. For

example, one of the first switches a teacher makes is from the overhead projector to the similar data

video projector. This switch does not in and of itself transform the learning experience, but it does

represent an adaptation that is likely to be more motivating for the "digital natives" whom we teach. As

World Languages and Cultures teachers become more and more proficient users of technology, it is

inevitable that we look ahead to what we can do next. Due to all of the recent construction approved by

Clayton voters, our teachers will soon largely teach in new spaces where they can rely on a certain

level of technology access. This positions us to move into "transformative" uses of technology. We are

setting as a goal that curriculum in all languages include assured experiences at the "transformative"

level of technology use.

What falls in this category that might be of interest to our discipline? Perhaps the most obvious

―transformative‖ uses of technology are the various forms of computer-mediated communication that

40

would allow us to put our students in contact with native speakers. There are other uses, but the

potential ways to make both accurate communication and cultural competency relevant are huge.

Shrum & Glisan (2010, p. 460) cite the following benefits provided by computer-mediated

communication:

more equal and increased participation than in regular face-to-face classroom based-activities (Blake,

2000, 2005, 2006); Bump, 1990; Cahill & Catanzaro, 1997; Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1002; Kern, 1995;

Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996)

positive attitudes (Beauvois, 1994)

greater student empowerment with decreased teacher control and dominance (Kern; Sullivan & Pratt)

wider variety of discourse functions and interactional modifications (Chun; Liu, Moore, Graham, &

Lee, 2002; Sotillo, 2000); and

opportunities for intracultural communication (Abrams 2003, 2006).

The technology exists to facilitate technological exchanges with classrooms from around the world.

Our plan is to schedule professional development for all world language teachers so that they may learn

how to take the next steps in this area. There are a small number of schools nationally and

internationally who already do asynchronous communication via exchange of texts or videos. For

example, one can do moderated and protected wikis where students share ideas in a safe environment.

It is possible for some classes to find times to do synchronous audio or videoconferencing. Similarly,

examples exist of schools that have taken on joint projects that are documented online and shared out to

the world. Most of these projects involve teacher-directed work that links two fairly traditional

classrooms in a new way. However, we are also aware that there are some cutting edge educators who

have gone beyond the walls of their classrooms in new ways.

Taking their cue from issues raised in Thomas Friedman's book, The World is Flat, a group of

educators have developed the Flat ClassroomTM

project. In the words of the project founders, "The

concept of a 'flat classroom' is based on the constructivist principle of a multi-modal learning

environment that is student-centered and a level playing field for teacher to student and student to

teacher interaction." These projects unite geographically disparate classrooms to collaborate on original

research or creative projects. Technology is leveraged in whatever ways needed to facilitate the work at

hand. What makes these projects so different from other technology-enhanced and globally-minded

projects is the degree to which constructivism is the pedagogical imperative. These educators are doing

cutting edge work that is a perfect fit to the District technology initiative. Flat ClassroomTM

style

projects align perfectly with the NETS•T, which also assume that teachers take a constructivist role to

facilitate learning experiences. These collaborative projects also align in emphasis on global

competency. A performance indicator for the "transformative" level on NETS•T Standard 3 states that

the teacher will "employ a variety of digital environments and media to collaborate with project teams

or learners of other countries and cultures to produce original works or solve shared problems." (p. 16).

Although we will undoubtedly start with the simpler types of technological, cross-cultural exchanges

previously described, it is clear that the Flat Classroom TM

model also offers us stimulating ways to

expand our practice.

41

So what are the obstacles? One obstacle tends to be that the learning curve on these projects is so steep

that teachers rarely attempt them until they have a lot of experience with technology use. Another

obstacle is that they require extremely careful design if students are not to fall behind in their overall

work for the course. A teacher has to ensure that they can meet objectives previously achieved through

other means, such as textbook use, through the project. Thus concerns about ―covering the curriculum‖

can hold teachers back from ambitious projects using ―transformational‖ technology. Plus, teachers

may need assistance in adapting to a new form of pedagogy; even the most constructivist teachers may

find the shift to students working in global teams a challenge. To encourage such endeavors, we will

need to take a team approach, where teachers team with a technology specialist to determine how they

can do the project within the curriculum. The current collaborative model used for the lab classrooms

may prove helpful for facilitating this switch.

Online Learning

An additional area of ―transformative‖ technology that we need to investigate further is the burgeoning

field of online learning. Initially rejected outright by foreign language teachers as impractical for

achieving communicative objectives, these courses have started to become more viable as technology

has opened new avenues. Two options that we need to investigate are commercially provided online

courses and teacher-constructed online courses. To date, we have had only a few students look into

such foreign language courses, and we lack a solid idea of what is out there. Furthermore, we currently

have no world language teachers using Moodle to provide an online course component. We are finding

that more and more high school students are interested in independent learning options online for

foreign language. Although independent learning is not our primary focus, we concede that such

coursework could potentially provide some assistance in meeting the needs of those students who need

courses we don't offer. For example, we have growing heritage language populations in Chinese,

Spanish and even French. We also intermittently encounter students who need summer remediation or

enrichment, but they are in groups too small to warrant a summer school class. We propose to study

what online coursework options are available or could be developed that could meet the needs of our

students, both elementary and secondary.

Technology Goals

In sum, it appears that Clayton world language teachers are on track already to grow to the required

level of technological proficiency. Our goals are thus focused on looking to how technology can truly

transform what we do today and to help us to better prepare our students to be global citizens.

Use our wiki, classroom observations, videotaping, and professional development time to share

technology best practices across buildings and levels.

Work in conjunction with the technology staff to schedule professional development for all world

language teachers on how to use technology to connect with classrooms around the globe.

Bring in an expert in technology use for world language instruction to conduct a workshop for all of our

teachers.

Provide necessary support and professional development so that all world language teachers test at

proficient and transformative levels on the NETS•T scale by spring 2012.

42

Identify, add to BYOC and implement assured technology-enriched experiences for all languages and

levels.

Study the availability, quality and practicality of commercial and teacher-authored online courses and

determine whether there exist good matches to our areas of need.

43

World Languages and Cultures Plan for the Work

Work in Progress: District Long-Range Goals

Align the written, instructed and tested curriculum horizontally and vertically for all levels and languages by

2013.

Support teachers' work through the development and implementation of professional development

opportunities tailored to the teaching of world languages and cultures.

Create and add to BYOC differentiated instruction options to meet the projected enrichment and support

needs of our students.

Future and Continued Work: Recommendations from our Studies

Elementary

Continue to research and monitor elementary language trends, particularly those related to instructional

models and choice of language.

Monitor the emergent trend of Chinese in the elementary schools.

Visit the elementary immersion school that has opened in St. Louis.

Revisit and revise the elementary Spanish curriculum.

Improve the quality and frequency of communication with parents and the school community.

Host an elementary Spanish parent forum to gather additional parental input on our program.

Propose an elementary Spanish summer program.

Assessment

Conduct a 3-5 year trial of STAMP assessment of our Spanish learners at several points in our sequence.

Add STAMP to Data Warehouse to facilitate data analysis.

Continue to conduct research regarding appropriate, nationally-normed assessment at the elementary level.

Pilot the elementary STAMP assessment (NOELLA) when it becomes available.

Begin STAMP testing in French and Chinese as well.

Investigate global competency assessments.

Technology

Use our wiki, classroom observations, videotaping, and professional development time to share technology

best practices across buildings and levels.

Work in conjunction with the technology staff to schedule professional development for all world language

teachers on how to use technology to connect with classrooms around the globe.

Bring in an expert in technology use for world language instruction to conduct a workshop for all of our

teachers.

Provide necessary support and professional development so that all world language teachers test at proficient

and transformative levels on the NETS•T scale by sprin 2012.

Identify, add to BYOC and implement assured technology-enriched experiences for all languages and levels.

Study the availability, quality and practicality of commercial and teacher-authored online courses and

determine whether there exist good matches to our areas of need.

44

Works Cited

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12

Learners. Yonkers: ACTFL, 1999. Print.

―Avant Assessment: STAMP Benchmarks.‖ Avant Assessment. Avant Assessment, 2010. Web. 23 Oct.

2010. <http://www.avantassessment.com/products/benchmarks.html>.

―CAL: Early Language Assessments: SOPA/ELLOPA.‖ Center for Applied Linguistics. CAL, 2009.

Web. 20 Oct. 2010. <http://www.cal.org/ela/sopaellopa/index.html>.

Council of Europe, ed. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,

Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.

Davis, Vicki. ―Flattening Your Classroom.‖ Preface. Seven Steps to Flatten Your Classroom. By

Atomic Learning. iii-v. Atomic Learning, 2009. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.atomiclearning.com/k12/download/ flat_class_ebook.pdf>.

Davis, Vicki, and Julie Lindsey. Flat Classroom Projects™. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.flatclassroomproject.net/>.

Falsgraf, Carl. ―Factors Affecting Proficiency: Instructional Time, Heritage Status, & SES.‖ Paper

presented at New Jersey Department of Education: January 21, 2009. CASLS. Web. 20 Oct.

2010. <http://casls.uoregon.edu/data/NewJerseyJan2009.pdf>.

Gilzow, Douglas F., and Lucinda E. Branaman. Lessons Learned: Model Early Foreign Language

Programs. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 2000. Print.

Going Global: Preparing Our Students for an Interconnected World . New York: Asia Society, 2008.

Print.

Jensen, Janis, and Paul Sanrock. The Essentials of World Languages, Grades K-12. Alexandria:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2007. Print.

Lipton, Gladys C. Practical Handbook to Elementary Foreign Language Programs. Lincolnwood:

National Textbook Company, 1998. Print.

National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers, 2nd ed. Eugene: ISTE, 2008. Print.

45

―National Standards for Foreign Language Education - American Council on the Teaching of Foreign

Languages.‖ American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct.

2010. <http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3392>.

Pufahl, Ingrid, Nancy C. Rhodes, and Donna Christian. Foreign Language Teaching: What the United

States Can Learn From Other Countries. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics,

2000. Print.

Rhodes, Nancy C., and Ingrid Pufahl. Foreign Language Teaching in US Schools: Results of a

National Survey. Berkeley: Center for Applied Linguistics, 2010. Print.

Shrum, Judith L., and Eileen W. Glisan. Teacher’s Handbook: Contextualized Language Instruction.

4th ed. Boston: Heinle, 2010. Print.

―STAMP: Foreign Language Proficiency Test.‖ CASLS: Improving Language Teaching & Learning.

Center for Applied Second Language Studies, 2010. Web. 21 Oct. 2010.

<http://casls.uoregon.edu/stamp.php>.

―STAMP Results — National Averages 2008-2009.‖ June 2010. PDF file.

―STAMP Results — National Averages 2008.‖ May 2009. PDF file.

―Testing for Proficiency: The ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview.‖ The American Council on the

Teaching of Foreign Languages. ACTFL, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. <http://www.actfl.org/i4a/

pages/index.cfm?pageid=3348>.

―What is the NSE?‖ National Spanish Examinations. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.nationalspanishexam.org/index.php/about-us/what-is-the-nse>.

46

Appendix A: Sequence of Courses

47

48

49

50

51

Appendix B: Timeline of New Courses, Trips and Study Topics

New Courses

2004-2005

Advanced Spanish-CHS

Advanced Spanish Honors-CHS

Spanish Novice B (later to be called ―Spanish II‖) at CHS

2005-2006

Spanish Novice A (later to be called ―Spanish I‖) at CHS

2006-2007

Popular Culture of Contemporary Spain at CHS

Film and Literature of the Hispanic World at CHS

2007-2008

6th Grade French (1st year of new sequence)

Spanish III at CHS

2008-2009

Chinese I at CHS and in 8th grade at Wydown.

7th Grade French (2nd year of new sequence)

2009-2010

7th grade Chinese at Wydown.

Chinese II at CHS.

French II in 8th grade at Wydown (completion of new sequence)

French I in 8th grade at Wydown (accelerated option).

2010-2011

8th grade Chinese at Wydown

Chinese III at CHS.

Spanish I in 8th grade at Wydown (accelerated option).

Trips

2004-2005

Wydown trip to France, Germany and Austria (co-sponsored by French/German).

CHS trip to Spain.

7th German exchange with Tauberbischofsheim.

2005-2006

Wydown trip to Costa Rica.

2006-2007

8th and final German exchange with Tauberbischofsheim.

2007-2008

Wydown trip to Guatemala (a community service/Spanish project).

2008-2009

Wydown trip to France – March 2009

2009-2010

Wydown trip to Mexico.

52

World Languages and Cultures Curriculum Committee Study Topics/Actions

2004-2005

Committee studies options for providing language choice to students in grade six

2005-2006

Language specific summit meetings are held for instructors in each language focusing on

curriculum refinement and articulation.

2006-2007

German phase-out begins.

First long-sequence Spanish learners graduate from CHS.

Committee considers feasibility of establishing Mandarin Chinese at CHS.

Language specific summit meetings are held for instructors in each language focusing on

curriculum refinement and articulation.

Committee studies Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,

teaching, assessment, a document compiled by the Council of Europe. All district world

language instructors attend a seminar concerning this work at Washington University.

Committee studies African-American achievement in world language classes in Clayton.

Grade distribution did not indicate an achievement gap in levels I and II, but we wondered why

relatively few African-Americans elect to continue their study to more advanced classes, and

how we might encourage more to do so.

2007-2008

Committee undertakes extensive study of successful Chinese programs. Career grant approved

for site visits to programs in Chicago and Minneapolis. Committee drafts proposal for Clayton

program.

Over 50 students enroll in the new 6th grade French course, opening up language choice one

year earlier than previously offered.

Language specific summit meetings are held for instructors in each language focusing on

curriculum refinement and articulation.

2008-2009

Curricular alignment work begins with an initial focus on use of new tool ―Build Your Own

Curriculum‖. Instructors meet and revise outcomes for each course.

Committee begins intensive study of flagship elementary programs. Site visits to Montgomery

County, MA and Fairfax County, VA.

Technology discussions initiated to gauge teachers' familiarity with current applications in

world languages.

Elementary parents surveyed to determine effectiveness of our communications regarding our

program.

Language specific summit meetings are held for instructors in each language focusing on

curriculum refinement and articulation.

53

2009-2010

Horizontal alignment work continues on ―Build Your Own Curriculum‖ and broadens to

include common assessments. All commonly taught courses develop and implement formative

and summative common assessments.

Articulation discussion to curriculum work being done for a number of courses over the

summer.

Technology survey gauges teachers' familiarity with current applications in world languages.

Language specific meetings held with various groups to work on goals specific to each

language and level.

Wydown Spanish teachers met regularly to work to prepare, implement, and analyze STAMP

test.

All World Language teachers participate in full-day professional development for differentiated

instruction. Elementary Spanish teachers do additional summer work differentiating units.

Plan begun for implementation in 2010-2011 to improve communications with stakeholders.

54

Appendix C: A Site Visit Report by Former World Languages Coordinator Glenn Cody

Fairfax County Public Schools – Fairfax, VA

The District and its Programs

The Fairfax County Public School District administers 196 schools in all including 137 separate

elementary schools. The district serves a total enrollment of about 170,000 students. Fairfax County is

the 12th largest district in the nation. In 2007, almost 14,000 students took at least one AP exam, and

over 90% of the graduating class continued on to some form of post-secondary education.

What We Did

We met with Marie Hinton, French speaker and Foreign Language Curriculum Resource Teacher. She

gave us background information and answered all of our questions. Then we toured two elementary

schools: Kent Gardens, which has a partial immersion French program, and Lake Anne, which has a

partial immersion Spanish program and a two-way immersion kindergarten (see below).

Foreign Language Immersion Programs

Fairfax County offers a partial immersion program in French, Spanish, Japanese and German in a select

number of elementary schools. One half of the school day is conducted in the target language; the

remaining half is reserved for instruction in English. Math, science and health are the three content

areas taught in the target language.

We observed several classes taught in French and Spanish at various grade levels. The instructors

never spoke a word of English, and we noted that the students were just as enthusiastic and engaged as

we would expect to see them in an English language setting. Most of the student to student interactions

were in the target language as well, even when they were discussing lunch or some other off-task topic.

Fairfax was also experimenting with the two way immersion model for kindergarten. One half of the

students were native Spanish speakers; the others spoke English. Both languages were used in the

classroom by the instructors, and the goal was for the students to learn a second language from one

another.

Enrollment

It is important to note that these partial immersion programs are completely voluntary; no one is forced

to send their child to a school where part of the school day is conduced in another language. In each

case, either an entire school building was set aside for the program, or the program runs side by side

with a traditional English language elementary program at the same school. Anyone can apply, and

students are enrolled by a lottery, not on the basis of their academic potential. Every year there are far

more applicants than seats in the program.

Normally, students can enter the program in grade one only. For those who move into the district in

later grades, a test is provided to see if they have sufficient language skills to be successful in the

program. Obviously, some families also leave the district from time to time, so the program allows for

a slightly larger than normal first grade class in order to accommodate the attrition that is sure to occur

in subsequent years.

55

Native speakers can apply for the program, but the percentage of native speaker enrollment is kept to

10%.

Assessment

Students are assessed on the content areas taught in the target language on a regular basis. Unit tests

and standardized tests are given in English, so the students are given vocabulary lists in both languages

at the beginning of each unit. Quizzes are given in the target language.

To assess the students' language progress, the program uses an internally created test called The

Language Immersion Student Assessment (LISA). It is given in grades 2, 4 and 6. The Center for

Applied Linguistics (CAL) helped the instructors adapt the ACTFL guidelines to the children's

cognitive level for each tested grade.

Articulation

There are transition programs in place at several middle schools. Students who complete grade six in a

partial immersion setting then enter a more traditional foreign language sequence in middle school.

Curriculum begins to focus on expanding students/ knowledge of the language to include

communicating about themselves and their immediate environment. This communication is evidenced

in all four language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing, with an emphasis on the ability to

communicate orally and in writing.

Montgomery County Public Schools – Montgomery County, VA

The District and its Programs

Like Fairfax County, Montgomery County is a huge district that serves 139,000 students and

administers 199 schools of which 130 are elementary programs. It is the 16th largest school district in

the nation, but unlike Fairfax, its constituency is racially, economically and culturally diverse. An

astonishing 134 different native languages are spoken by immigrants from 164 countries! Montgomery

County is proud of its high graduation rate – 90.3%, and over 60% of juniors and seniors took at least

one AP test in 2006.

What we did

We visited Rolling Terrace Elementary School which offers a partial immersion Spanish program

housed in the same building as a traditional English-language elementary school. We spoke with the

district language coordinator and instructional resource supervisor and visited several classrooms. We

spent the afternoon at Sligo Creek Elementary School that offers a full immersion French experience,

again in the same building as a traditional English- language elementary program.

Foreign Language Immersion Programs

Montgomery County offers partial immersion programs in Chinese (two schools), and Spanish (two

schools) that begin in grade one and continue through grade five. Full immersion programs are offered

in French (two schools) and Spanish (one school)

56

Enrollment

Participation in either the full or partial immersion programs is strictly voluntary. As in Fairfax

County, there are always far more applicants than seats in the program. Anyone can apply, and

participants are chosen by a lottery, not by academic potential. Students cannot normally join the

program after kindergarten or first grade, unless they are new to the district. In that case, a test is

provided to determine whether or not the incoming student's language skills are sufficient.

An Experience Beyond Belief

As mentioned above, we spent a full afternoon at Sligo Creek Elementary School where we observed a

class in every grade level, beginning with kindergarten, in their full immersion French program.

Although what follows is a personal observation from me, Glenn Cody, I know that I can speak for the

entire team.

It was especially enlightening to see a kindergarten class in action, because here, obviously, is where it

all begins. How is it, I asked myself, that the students can just begin speaking French without ever

being formally taught how to do so? The instructor begins speaking French, and only French, on the

very first day of class. She uses a lot of visual aids and other manipulatives, and even though the

students speak English with her initially, she still answers them only in French. The students we

observed had been in kindergarten for five months, and it was about at that point, we were told, that

they would begin, little by little, to respond in French, both with the instructor and with one another.

The lesson we observed consisted of animals and the terms used to describe them. The instructor had a

huge cloth bag, and as she pulled stuffed animals one by one out of the bag, she described them in

French while pointing to each featured attribute. The students shrieked with delight as each animal

made its appearance, and I noticed that their comments to one another were sometimes in French,

sometimes in English. After she finished her explanations, the instructor then presented each animal a

second time. Then the students took turns providing the descriptions, in French mostly. Was it

flawless French? Not at all, but the students were beginning to communicate in the same manner that

they first began to communicate in English, disjointed words and phrases that provide the building

blocks for more sophisticated structures later on.

We then watched a group of first graders in a well appointed classroom rotate from one learning station

to another. The activities ranged from measuring exercises, to working on play dough creations all

supervised by a team of young, enthusiastic native speaker instructional aides. As I accompanied the

students to and from their various activities, I spoke French with them. Although our interaction was

on the most basic of levels, the only way I can still communicate, they seemed to be completely at

home in the language. I was not only impressed, I was also having such a fantastic time that it was

hard to pull myself away.

As we continued up the grades, we were nothing short of astonished at what we saw - classroom

discussions completely in French on a variety of very sophisticated topics. As expected, the students in

grade five were the most proficient. Still, none of us were prepared for what awaited us. After a few

brief introductory remarks, the instructor divided the class into groups of four, and each group

57

conducted a complete discussion of a novel they had just finished reading. Here was a classroom that

could have been in France. Everyone had something substantial to contribute and they even questioned

and commented on their classmates' conclusions. Wow! Helping students reach this level in another

language is the dream of every world language teacher, and yet given the time we have, it's never been

attainable. Here was language instruction as I had only imagined it. These students had become

completely proficient and comfortable in a second language all while mastering the multidisciplinary

outcomes of a traditional elementary curriculum. How I wish I could have sent my own children to

such a school! Again, it was very difficult for me to leave. For the first time in my teaching career, I

had observed the pinnacle of second language education. I left with tears in my eyes.

Assessment

Like so many other districts, Montgomery County found it necessary to develop their own world

language assessments to monitor the program's success and effectiveness. Like the ones developed in

Fairfax and in Clayton, they are developmentally appropriate for each level and soundly based on the

ACTFL national standards.

Articulation

Students may elect to continue their language in a partial immersion setting in grades six, seven and

eight. There are two middle schools per language that offer this arrangement. Social studies and a

course dedicated to exploring the grammar and structures of the language are taught in the target

language. Alternatively, students may elect to begin a new language at the middle school, but these

offerings are more traditional, sequential world language experiences.

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Appendix E: STAMP Results

71

72

73

*As 2010 National Scores were not available at time of report, comparison is to previous year's national scores for all

European languages tested.

74

Appendix F: Teacher Technology Surveys

Fall 2010

What technology do you use and how frequently do you use it?

Frequency

Technology

Routinely Sometimes Inconsistently Rarely Not

Available

LCD projector 17

Smart Board 8 7 1 2

Interactive

software

6 5 2 2 1

Language lab

(CHS only)

6 2 2

Podcasts 1 1 3 11 1

Web-based

games

4 10 1 1

Web-based

assessments

3 6 5 2

Web-based

activities (either provided

by text company

or other

individuals)

7 8 2

Digital

video/still

cameras

11 2 3

Blogs, wikis 1 1 14

Senteo

"clickers"

1 1 14

Document

camera

13 4

Google Docs 5 3 9

75

Fall 2009

What technology do you use and how frequently do you use it?

Frequency

Technology

Routinely Sometimes Inconsistently Rarely Not

Available

LCD projector 14 3 1 1

Smart Board 6 7 1 2 3

Interactive

software

5 3 2 2 2

Language lab

(CHS only)

3 4 2 2 4

Podcasts 1 3 8 3

Web-based

games

6 8 2 2

Web-based

assessments

2 3 3 9 1

Web-based

activities (either

provided by text

company or other

individuals)

6 8 2 2

Digital

video/still

cameras

9 3 6

Blogs, wikis 3 12 1

Senteo

"clickers"

1 15 1

Other (Please

specify):

Document

Camera

4 1

Other (Please

specify):

Google Docs

2 1

76