Mr. Karl R. Girton, Chairman
PA State Board of Education
333 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333

Dear Mr. Girton:

In the summer of 1996 I joined several hundred educators from Pennsylvania on the campus of Dickinson College to begin work on the state educational Standards as part of the Chapter IV curriculum initiative. Those in attendance were told that the Standards would raise education in Pennsylvania to new levels of excellence. Other foreign language educators and myself were elated. Under the previous Chapter V curriculum regulations, Pennsylvania already was in the forefront of foreign language education in the United States as it contained the graduation requirement that “All Students must speak a language other than their own at a minimum of the Intermediate Low level of proficiency” as defined by the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines.Foreign language educators in the state saw that Standards would enhance this requirement.

Today, more than 7 years later, Pennsylvania still does NOT have approved Foreign (World) Language Standards. WHY?

Several things have happened in the interim that have contributed to this dilemma.

The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) allowed the position of Foreign Language Adviser to go unfulfilled for almost 4 years. In the interim, the Pennsylvania State Modern Language Association (PSMLA) was directed to develop Foreign Language Standards. A quality set of Standards was developed by volunteers from this organization and
reviewed by educators, parents and students from the state and foreign language experts from throughout the nation. These were submitted to the Department of Education and despite previous directions which were followed, these were returned multiple times for correction. Each time that PSMLA worked with a different person at PDE (and there were many),
different changes were recommended. In the eyes of the national experts who reviewed these, the changes only served to weaken the proposed Standards.

In approximately 2000, a World Language Adviser, Ms. Pamela Kolega, was finally appointed. PSMLA continued to work with the Standards under the direction of PDE and with Ms. Kolega. Ongoing sets of changes still continued to be recommended. Other groups of educators both from within and outside of foreign languages were brought together to review and refine the Standards.This work continued until the point where a Draft of World Language Standards, radically different than those originally proposed, were presented formally to the State Board of Education.

While all of the above was happening, political forces among Pennsylvania educators swirled both in opposition to and support of the proposed Standards. Much of the opposition to the World Language Standards has come from those who feel overwhelmed by the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. By ignoring or opposing the approval of World Language Standards on these grounds is in direct opposition to the message of Dr. Rod Paige, United States Secretary of Education regarding the place of foreign languages under NCLB. In remarks presented by Secretary Paige at the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Annual Meeting on November 21, 2003, he stated that:

• Foreign language instruction should be part of every child’s education.

• Under No Child Left Behind legislation there is a looming danger - some schools are cutting language classes and we cannot let this happen.

• No Child Left Behind gives us new ways to solidify or increase foreign language offerings in our schools.

• In fact, foreign language is considered a “core academic subject” under No Child Left Behind which means that Foreign language teachers must be highly qualified; and States and districts can use their Title II teacher quality grant money on professional development and other initiatives to get their teachers, including foreign language teachers to become highly qualified in their field.

• There has been some resistance and some misinformation (re: the use of Title II funds).

• Under No Child Left Behind, we introduced more local flexibility to allow for music, foreign languages, art and other courses to remain part of the curriculum or. perhaps, to even allow the number of courses to grow.

• It is time to focus on what can and must be done under the law, not to point fingers and run for cover.

• Other federal funding available or proposed to assist the development of foreign language programs includes the Title VI Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language competition to provide in-service training, the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) and the Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad which includes a request for seminars that develop and improve foreign language and areas studies at elementary and secondary schools.

There are those who oppose World Language Standards on the grounds of their being an unfunded mandate. How many of these opponents have applied for the funding to which Dr. Paige refers (only 5 FLAP programs were funded in Pennsylvania this year) or other sources of financial assistance? How many of the districts or educators who complain have looked to enhance the training or hiring of foreign language educators or the development of programs by obtaining funding from these sources?

We have also heard from those who oppose World Language Standards on the grounds that there are not enough qualified teachers. To those who voice that objection I ask “How many have used sources to find qualified teachers such as the PSMLA list serve, the Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages and American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages job boards and/or the FLTEACH list serve. Many who have voiced this concern to me have also admitted that they have never used or even heard of these sources.

Recently, the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), your national professional organization, has authored “The Complete Curriculum” in which it speaks of the importance of foreign languages. In 2003, the NASBE Board of Directors charged the Study Group on the Lost Curriculum with examining the current status of curriculum in our nation’s schools, particularly regarding the arts and foreign languages. After a year of intense study, the group drew several important conclusions about the status of these subjects, as well as some key recommendations for state policy makers. Regarding foreign languages the conclusions on which these recommendations are based include:

• There is a substantial body of research that highlights the benefits of foreign languages in the curriculum.

• The study of foreign languages has often been marginalized and is increasingly at risk of being lost as part of the core curriculum.

• To address these conclusions, the Study Group on the Lost Curriculum formulated the following recommendations for state
policymakers to ensure that foreign languages are not lost and remain an integral part of the core curriculum.

• Adopt high quality licensure requirements for the staff in foreign languages that are aligned with student standards.

• Ensure adequate time for high-quality professional development for staff in the arts and foreign languages.

• Ensure adequate staff expertise at the state education agency to work in foreign languages.

• Incorporate foreign languages into core graduation requirements while simultaneously increasing the number of credits required for graduation.

• Encourage higher education institutions to increase standards for admission and include foreign language courses when calculating high school grade point averages.

• Incorporate foreign language learning in the early years into standards, curriculum frameworks and course requirements.

• Incorporate all core subject areas, including foreign languages, into the improvement strategies promoted by the No Child Left Behind Act.

• Urge federal and state legislatures to make a greater commitment to funding for foreign languages, consistent with that available for other
subjects.

In summary, I implore the State Board of Education to follow the recommendations put forth by both Secretary Paige and the National Association of State Boards of Education by restoring foreign language education in Pennsylvania to its place of prominence in the state and nation by adopting the proposed Pennsylvania World Language Standards for all students. Don’t do what is most economical, most expedient or most popular! Do what is best for the students of the Commonwealth.

Thank you.

Frank Mulhern
Foreign Language Specialist
Department of Education
LaSalle University
Philadelphia, PA 19141-1199

929 Powderhorn Drive
Lansdale, PA 19446