View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Language Education in Elementary Schools: Meeting the Needs of the Nation

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Language Education in Elementary Schools: Meeting the Needs of the Nation
Language: English
Authors: Rubio, Fernando
Source: Foreign Language Annals. Spr 2018 51(1):90-103.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Second Language Learning, Second Language Instruction, Elementary School Students, Immersion Programs, FLES, Teaching Methods, Sequential Approach, Program Descriptions, Articulation (Education), Language Proficiency, Advanced Students, Access to Education, Financial Support, Human Resources, Program Development, Second Language Programs
DOI: 10.1111/flan.12313
ISSN: 0015-718X
Abstract: This article briefly reviews the social, political, and economic context that explains the present status of elementary language education in the United States and addresses the challenges identified by recent reports on the state of language education in the United States. Different curricular models of world language education--exploratory, sequential, and immersion--are discussed in regard to their ability to meet the need, expressed by the profession, to provide universal access to language education and produce graduates who have advanced levels of language proficiency. The article argues that in order to be successful, elementary programs have to be built with support and input from a variety of stakeholders, with careful consideration of the financial and human resources needed and with long-term articulation plans. A state-supported immersion program is used to illustrate how the integration of all these factors can lead to successful and scalable programs.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1172866
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHDy8gr_kF5-WPPBRQbOX-2AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDdoN1PMgQrfEbQN6gIBEICBm6_dXKm6XRtIIEJ_w5xZxVdEloCZjDfBClMm1HalRx6qmX8D7iQzz3drIejMr7R0ed0V5GRj3AiZxFZubVwO2lrzOSht5a9RMi4nfzfq6SSP3NHFIVvTx7JIdBMBcjnzpoI04NGnc-4GdJfCRetf8DVO1RV33vkrD9wYaQGpna_UCGpmz-cLbUrfC6Qm1JinMZVnS5veNsjC7CFB
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0128531952;fla01mar.18;2018Mar19.12:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0128531952-1">Language education in elementary schools: Meeting the needs of the nation </title> <p>This article briefly reviews the social, political, and economic context that explains the present status of elementary language education in the United States and addresses the challenges identified by recent reports on the state of language education in the United States. Different curricular models of world language education—exploratory, sequential, and immersion—are discussed in regard to their ability to meet the need, expressed by the profession, to provide universal access to language education and produce graduates who have advanced levels of language proficiency. The article argues that in order to be successful, elementary programs have to be built with support and input from a variety of stakeholders, with careful consideration of the financial and human resources needed and with long‐term articulation plans. A state‐supported immersion program is used to illustrate how the integration of all these factors can lead to successful and scalable programs.</p> <p>advocacy and policy; articulation and extended sequences (pre‐K–20); dual‐language/two‐way immersion; early language learning (pre‐K, elementary); exploratory language learning</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Language teaching in the United States has often been subject to the ebbs and flows of social, political, and economic demands. Economic and political reasons help explain the growth in enrollments in Japanese courses during the Japanese economic bubble of the 1980s as well as the recent growth of Chinese and Russian. Likewise, language teaching has been influenced, to some extent, by the advances in research in second language acquisition. For example, recent research on the cognitive benefits of bilingualism and its coverage by mainstream media (e.g., Bhattacharjee, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref1">6</reflink>] ) has contributed to a renewed interest in immersion education. Additional research has documented strong and sustained public support for language education (Rivers, Robinson, Harwood, & Brecht, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref2">28</reflink>] ). However, the 2006 General Social Survey found that only 25% of American adults indicated that they knew a foreign language and, of those, only 7% reported having learned the language at school (Devlin, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref3">12</reflink>] , para. 6). What is more, a 2017 report on language enrollments in K–12 education in the United States published by the American Councils for International Education found that “a total of 11 states have foreign language graduation requirements; 16 states do not have foreign language graduation requirements; and 24 states have graduation requirements that may be fulfilled by a number of subjects—one of which is foreign languages” (p. 6).</p> <p>This situation differs dramatically from that in other parts of the world. Based on statistical data from 2011, approximately 66% of European Union citizens between ages 25 and 64 speak at least one foreign language, and almost 30% of the population knows two or more foreign languages (Eurostat, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref4">15</reflink>] , p. 2). These findings are not unexpected, since almost 80% of European children enrolled in primary education in 2009–2010 were learning a foreign language (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref5">14</reflink>] , p. 57). Given the growing national interest in language learning and framed by instructional policies and practices abroad, it thus seems logical, even imperative, that helping learners to develop proficiency in one or more languages other than English should be a goal of the U.S. educational system.</p> <p>Precisely in response to this turn in American education, the profession has produced two comprehensive reports in the past few years that analyzed the challenges and suggested possible courses of action. As a result of a collaborative project between a number of national and international associations, the Languages for All? initiative sponsored by the University of Maryland published a report and action plan (Abbott et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>] ) that drew up a series of recommendations designed to make language learning available to all American students. In addition, at the request of four members of Congress, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) published a report titled America's Languages: Investing in Language Education for the 21st Century (2017). Prepared by the AAAS Commission on Language Learning, the report included a list of very similar findings and recommendations designed “to improve the nation's language capacity” (AAAS, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>] , p. 6) and help “meet the nation's needs in a shrinking world” (p. viii). The AAAS report recommended that “every school in the nation offer meaningful instruction in world and/or Native American languages as part of their standard curricula” (p. 8). This article responds to the call for action that is stated in those reports and is increasingly voiced by the American public.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-3">THE CURRENT SITUATION</hd> <hd id="AN0128531952-4">K–12 language offerings in the United States</hd> <p>While most European countries mandate world language education as part of the elementary and secondary curriculum, no such nationwide mandate exists in the United States (Devlin, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>] ), which helps explain both the current situation and the historical fluctuations in world language offerings. For example, a comparison of results of national surveys that have been conducted every decade by the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) is provided in Figure and documents decreases in the number of elementary schools, both private and public, that offered a world language compared to the previous two decades (Pufahl & Rhodes, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>] ). The drop was particularly significant in the case of public schools, only 15% of which offered language instruction in 2008 (p. 261).</p> <p>The data also document an overall decline in the number of K–12 students who were enrolled in language courses, from a high of around 16 million in 1997 to 14.7 million in 2008 (Pufahl & Rhodes, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>] , p. 263). In addition, the more recent report by the American Councils for International Education ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>] ) found that only 10.6 million K–12 students were enrolled in language courses during the 2014–2015 school year, representing another significant decrease since 2008 (p. 7).</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-5">Program models</hd> <p>The recent CAL survey (Pufahl & Rhodes, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref12">27</reflink>] ) also shed light on the kinds of language learning opportunities that are offered to young learners. Because the three main models or approaches described (foreign language in elementary school [FLES], foreign language exploratory [FLEX], and immersion) differ in instructional goals, curricular structure, teaching approaches, and intensity, such data further inform language educators' understanding of students' current opportunities to learn a language other than English.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-6">FLES</hd> <p>In the FLES model, also known as the sequential model, the target language is taught three to five times per week as a separate subject. The typical goals of the sequential model are the acquisition of listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills together with an understanding and appreciation of other cultures. Proponents of the FLES model argue that students can reach good levels of proficiency if these programs are built as extended sequences that constitute the total elementary school program and contribute to a K–12 foreign language sequence. According to the American Councils for International Education 2017 study, FLES is currently the most common in U.S. K–8 programs: 174 schools reported having FLES programs compared to only 59 that offered FLEX programs (p. 31), although these results differ from those reported by Pufahl and Rhodes ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>] ), as described in the paragraph below.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-7">FLEX</hd> <p>FLEX, or exploratory programs, have been offered for about half a century and exemplify what has been an important view of schooling during the middle and early adolescent years as a time for learners to explore a variety of topics and skills. To that end, these programs have limited ambitions regarding proficiency goals and often provide a shorter sequence of study than the other two models. They typically provide general exposure to language and culture with the goal of developing an interest in foreign language for future study. Pufahl and Rhodes (2011, p. 263) found that the FLEX/exploratory model was the most common program option in public elementary schools, holding a slight advantage over FLES programs, although the opposite distribution was found in private schools.</p> <p>Proponents of the FLEX model have continued to point out that with its primary emphasis on developing an awareness of language and culture, the FLEX approach is not incompatible with but is rather complementary to FLES programs. In fact, the approach has been described as one avenue for launching students into sequential language study or as an enriching and broadening experience in additional languages for those already in a single‐language sequence (Kennedy & De Lorenzo, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>] ). Its detractors have noted that often school administrators are not in a position to offer an introduction to languages in a FLEX format followed by a sequential FLES program but that instead, the choice is “whether to provide several exploratory experiences in a language or whether to create the start of a sequential language experience” (Knop & Sandrock, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>] , p. 74).</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-8">Dual‐language immersion (DLI)</hd> <p>DLI programs aim at producing bilingual, bicultural, and biliterate students in both English and a partner language through core academic instruction in both languages with at least 50% of instructional time in the partner language. DLI programs can be one‐way or two‐way. In one‐way programs, the majority of the students share the same first language, while in two‐way programs at least one third of the students are native speakers of the partner language. Proponents of DLI programs have pointed to a number of benefits for both English learners and students learning the partner language. Thomas and Collier ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref16">33</reflink>] ) specifically cited the following advantages (among others): English learners in DLI programs score better on standardized state tests and learn English better than those in English as a second language programs, English speakers in DLI programs score higher on standardized state tests than their peers in English mainstream programs, DLI students report more favorable attitudes toward bilingualism and multiculturalism, and DLI students have higher levels of satisfaction and self‐esteem.</p> <p>Although the immersion model is currently the least common of the three major approaches, it has experienced rapid growth over the past three decades, from only 50 programs reported in 1985 to 448 in 2011 (Center for Applied Linguistics, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>] , n.p.). Although more recent official data were not available at the time of publication of this article and accurate numbers of programs are challenging to establish, some estimations indicated that as of September 2017, there may have been as many as 2,400 immersion programs in the United States (G. Roberts, personal communication, September 29, 2017).</p> <p>In sum, these three models have dominated elementary language education in the 20th and, so far, the 21st century. While FLEX and FLES continue to be very popular, immersion has experienced significant growth in the past few years. The question then is determining under what circumstances and for what purposes we should continue to support these three models and to what extent each model will help the country in meeting its language learning needs.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-9">LOOKING FORWARD</hd> <p>Few would disagree that giving every elementary student access to language learning experiences and opportunities to develop cultural awareness is a desirable objective. The AAAS 2017 report called for language education to be available in every elementary school in the nation. Similarly, the Abbott et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>] ) final report on the Languages for All? initiative described a vision in which everyone would have access to language learning opportunities in the United States within the next decade. However, many within and beyond our profession would argue that a high level of cultural and linguistic proficiency for all is neither a viable nor a necessary goal. The question then is: What should be the desired outcomes of a comprehensive plan for language education in our country and what role can elementary education play in achieving them?</p> <p>In addition to the main goal of equal and universal access to language education, Languages for All? also advocates a scenario in which the general population would be stratified according to their ability or future need to function in a world language. A significant portion of the population (30%) should be able to achieve a level of linguistic and cultural proficiency that would allow them to satisfy basic professional needs, and 20% should reach a full professional level of proficiency that would allow them to function as global professionals (Superior proficiency) or experts (Distinguished proficiency, according to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines [ACTFL, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>] ]). This ideal scenario is based on the assumption that there is unprecedented demand for language skills and that the conditions are in place to make language instruction effective and efficient. Figure uses a pyramid to illustrate this distribution. The authors of the report added that “in order to achieve language competence at higher levels, we must broaden the base of this pyramid by attracting many more learners into the system, ensuring that a sufficient number of learners will stay for the extended sequence of language learning required by these high levels of ability” (Abbott et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>] , p. 6).</p> <p>The different layers represented in the pyramid can easily be associated with the goals of different levels of education, from elementary education at the base to secondary, undergraduate, and finally graduate and postgraduate and/or specialized education at the top. The scenario described in Figure has a number of crucial implications for every level. Acknowledging that providing 100% of learners with exposure to language and culture can be viewed as the purview of elementary teachers, this article focuses specifically on how the different instructional models for very young learners can help achieve that goal.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-10">The future of the FLES and FLEX models</hd> <p>In terms of feasibility, it is important to bear in mind that only about one in every four elementary schools in the United States currently offers language instruction in any form (see Figure ) and that considerable changes in terms of resources—both human and financial—and curricular structuring would be necessary to make universal access to language in elementary schools a reality and thus make language instruction in the elementary school the base on which to build the language capacity of the nation. Unfortunately, these challenges are essentially identical to those that were identified by Met ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref21">24</reflink>] ) more than three decades ago. Adequate funding has continued to be a limitation to the growth of languages in elementary schools. Since language teachers are typically not the homeroom teachers but rather are hired ad hoc, they require additional staffing resources. The shortage of qualified language teachers that has plagued our profession over the past couple of decades has also affected the limited presence of languages in the elementary curriculum. The vision of an educational system that provides access to language instruction for all and can produce highly proficient language users will never materialize unless a well‐trained cadre of teaching professionals is available. With these practical considerations in mind, it is important to examine the feasibility and probable outcomes of two common approaches to FLES and FLEX program design.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-11">Nonintensive FLES and FLEX</hd> <p>As noted above, although they are among the more common program designs, these options represent the least intensive exposure to language learning. They are therefore the least likely approach to helping students to develop meaningful proficiency and thus meet the nation's needs for highly proficient language professionals. For example, nonintensive FLES programs offer K–5 learners only 20–30 minutes of instruction once a week. Likewise, middle school elective and sometimes multilanguage FLEX programs meet daily for 45–55 minutes for four to six weeks. This is obviously not enough exposure to reach any functional level of proficiency. Considering that the general intended outcomes of these programs are mainly initial awareness of and exposure to other languages and cultures, the feasibility of FLEX and nonintensive FLES programs will depend on whether they represent a goal in themselves or rather an initial step toward a longer, sequential program. In the absence of systematic studies on the long‐term effectiveness of these exploratory or nonintensive programs, one cannot imagine how they can by themselves contribute to meeting the goals stated in the AAAS report (AAAS, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>] ) and the Languages for All? initiative (Abbott et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>] ) and fulfill the nation's language learning needs. However, as Kennedy and De Lorenzo ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>] ) argued, exploratory and nonintensive models do not preclude long sequential FLES programs; in fact, the two may be complementary. Although nonintensive programs can be successful as a way to instill in young learners an interest in other languages and cultures, the recommendation here would be to consider FLEX and nonintensive FLES programs only as viable options when resource limitations do not allow for more extended sequences or when these programs are built as the first link in longer, sequential paths.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-12">Intensive FLES</hd> <p>There is a paucity of research showing the effectiveness of intensive FLES programs, which could perhaps be one of the reasons for the lack of widespread support for elementary language education. Moreover, the few studies available have not painted a consistent picture. Donato, Tucker, Wudthayagorn, and Igarashi ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>] ) reported on the level of speaking proficiency of fourth‐ and fifth‐grade children after 5 or 6 years of enrollment in a 75‐minute‐per‐week Japanese FLES program. Their results showed that students were typically still in the Novice range of proficiency on the ACTFL scale, which prompted the authors to caution that the “overly enthusiastic expectations for language development in sequential FLES programs must be tempered with the realization that, to progress through various stages of novice level performance, children require a good deal of time on task” (p. 382). However, a more recent study showed that strong FLES programs can result in meaningful outcomes, particularly when linked to a middle school program. Boyson, Semmer, Thompson, and Rosenbusch ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>] ) reported on a study that compared a long‐sequence K–8 program in Spanish with a short‐sequence grades 5–8 program. In addition to showing an advantage for the early‐start, long‐sequence program, the study found that the longer sequence produced good levels of proficiency, with more than 75% of the students reaching the ACTFL Intermediate level in speaking and more than 90% in listening (p. 257). It is not clear whether the improved results reported by Boyson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>] ) compared those reported by Donato et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>] ) were due to changes in instructional approaches, different assessment tools, or differences in program length. What is clear is that at least based on the limited evidence available, reasonable functional proficiency can be achieved in an intensive FLES program.</p> <p>What conditions need to be in place, then, to facilitate the success of intensive, long‐sequence FLES programs? Some answers can be found by looking at the European context, where most foreign language instruction follows a similar approach to FLES: Children begin learning languages between ages six and nine and often as early as age three; language is a compulsory component of the elementary curriculum and is, therefore, more adequately funded; and on average, 10% of the total instructional time is allocated to language teaching (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>] ). Under these circumstances, most European countries expect proficiency levels of A2 to B1 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>] ) scale (Intermediate Mid to Intermediate High on the ACTFL scale) by the end of lower secondary education (middle school). As has been seen, similar conditions have yielded comparable results in some of our country's FLES programs (Boyson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>] ).</p> <p>However, other conditions will also need to be present to guarantee the continued success of FLES. Apart from solutions to the “practical” impediments posed by limited financial and human resources as well as allocated instructional time, progress through the continuum of language proficiency and cultural awareness will require a very intentional and systematic plan of articulation that facilitates a well‐sequenced and structured approach. As Met ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>] ) warned, “if planning for the junior and senior high school level is not an integral part of planning for the elementary level, the lack of articulation will eventually backfire” (p. 471). This level of articulation will require much closer collaborations between levels of instruction than what is currently the case. For example, of the 400 K–8 schools surveyed in the American Councils for International Education study, only 12 reported having some form of collaboration with other elementary, middle, or high schools (American Councils for International Education, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>] , p. 33). These data only confirm what Pufahl and Rhodes ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>] ) had described: “about 50% of elementary schools reported that there was no articulated sequence of instruction for their language students when they entered middle school” (p. 267).</p> <p>Curriculum and pedagogy are also important considerations when assessing the future viability of FLES programs. Based on the results of systematic classroom observations of a FLES program, Donato et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref35">13</reflink>] ) warned that an instructional approach that includes few opportunities for creative use of the language, negotiation of meaning, and limited evidence of extended discourse will not result in proficiency beyond the ACTFL Novice level. There have been no large‐scale studies to confirm whether the instructional approach described by Donato et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>] ) may be widespread, but a possible curricular solution that would certainly facilitate the increase of authentic communicative opportunities would be the integration of content and language instruction. This was one of the ingredients in the recipe for success used in the Glastonbury (CT) program (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref37">8</reflink>] ) and is also common in the European model, in which many schools and even entire national systems follow the content and language integrated learning approach. An added benefit is that in the current educational context, in which the focus—and most of the resources—is on high‐stakes testing in English language arts and math, integrating content and language instruction can help language teaching be perceived as complementary, rather than competing for time allocation with other subjects.</p> <p>Finally, if the goal is “to ensure that every year students are provided with foreign language instruction that builds on the knowledge and skills they have acquired in previous classes” (Pufahl & Rhodes, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>] , p. 274), agreeing on desired goals at every level of instruction is critical. Consistently achieving this goal will require longer, well‐articulated K–12 instructional sequences that provide students with enough exposure to one or more languages and cultures; that make use of age‐ and developmentally appropriate curriculum, instructional activities, and materials; and most important, that consistently target and assess students' progress toward stated exit expectations. The publication of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in 1996 (U.S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref39">34</reflink>] ; revised as the World‐Readiness Standards for Learning Languages in 2015 [National Standards Collaborative Board, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref40">25</reflink>] ]) and the subsequent publication of state‐specific standards is expected to have a continuing positive impact on promoting a uniform focus across K–12 language programs: While in 1997 only 19% of elementary schools reported integrating the Standards, that percentage climbed to 59% in 2008 (Pufahl & Rhodes, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref41">27</reflink>] , p. 271) and is probably much higher today. However, coalescing around a common framework is a necessary but not sufficient condition for meeting the nation's needs; meaningful articulation will require common measurements to assess progress toward and achievement of those goals. Unfortunately, very few schools are currently using standardized, nationally available forms of assessment to measure the effectiveness of their programs or to provide baselines on which to build adequate articulation plans (American Councils for International Education, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>] , p. 33), perhaps due to the cost of implementing a regular regimen of reliable testing.</p> <p>In sum, intensive FLES can provide a viable route toward ensuring that 100% of children gain at least minimal functional proficiency and the concomitant intercultural competence in a language other than English, provided that a number of challenges are addressed. Many of the keys to success today are the same as those identified by Brown ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref43">8</reflink>] ) for the Glastonbury program more than 20 years ago: a strong team of specialists and administrators to oversee the program, qualified teachers who are both language and content experts, a well‐articulated program with input from a variety of stakeholders, access to challenging study abroad programs, an integrated curriculum in which content taught in the target language dovetails with what is being learned in other classes, and a strong level of parental involvement. In addition to those, the current context requires the resolution of financial and human resource issues and the systematic addressing of time allocation and assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-13">DLI as a viable option</hd> <p>As is obvious from the above discussion, reaching the levels of language proficiency that are identified as targets in Figure is a difficult task that the language profession will not be able to accomplish by itself. With that consideration in mind, DLI (both one‐way and two‐way) may prove the best option to help elementary language education reach the goals set by our profession and at the same time provide an extended, well‐articulated path capable of producing highly proficient and culturally aware citizens.</p> <p>First, abundant research has confirmed the effectiveness of DLI as a way to combine language and content learning for both native and nonnative speakers of English with all the associated previously mentioned advantages. Findings from a number of studies have pointed out that both native speakers of English (e.g., Marian, Shook, & Schroeder, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>] ; Padilla, Fan, Xu, & Silva, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref45">26</reflink>] ; Steele et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref46">31</reflink>] ) and nonnative speakers (e.g., Lindholm‐Leary & Block, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref47">20</reflink>] ; Marian et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref48">23</reflink>] ; Steele et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>] ; Thomas & Collier, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref50">33</reflink>] ) can reach high levels of academic achievement when they are assessed in English on standardized (national, state, and/or district) assessments. Although less extensive, there has also been research proving the linguistic benefits of immersion programs (Burkhauser et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref51">9</reflink>] ; Fortune & Tedick, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref52">16</reflink>] ; Padilla et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref53">26</reflink>] ; Watzinger‐Tharp & Rubio, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref54">37</reflink>] ) and the positive effect that immersion programs can have on students' motivation and attitudes toward college as well as their academic success (Lindholm‐Leary & Borsato, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref55">21</reflink>] ).</p> <p>A number of recent large‐scale, state‐supported initiatives can provide important clues as to the way in which immersion and dual‐immersion programs need to be built in order to ensure that students who learn in one language but are assessed in another not only score as well as their comparable monolingual peers but also develop proficiency in the new language. These initiatives have addressed many similar challenges to the ones described for FLES programs but have also tried to tackle other crucial issues. In particular, they have demonstrated that successful and effective elementary language programs must (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>) be built to include collaborations with various stakeholders including government, education, and business; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>) utilize a model that is realistic in terms of the necessary human and financial resources; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>) be designed around a clear K–16 articulation plan to achieve their desired outcomes. The following sections draw on the Utah DLI initiative—the largest in the country with 39,000 students in 196 schools enrolled in immersion programs in six languages (Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish) during the current (2017–2018) academic year—as an example of the way in which DLI can provide an effective and scalable approach.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-14">Collaborations</hd> <p>While the AAAS report (2017) proposed a strategy to address the current shortcomings, e.g., the lack of universal access to language education and the shortage of qualified teachers, the report also recommended drawing on existing potential, such as exploring private‐public partnerships. Similarly, the Languages for All? report (Abbott et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>] ) argued that part of the problem of language education in the United States is a lack of communication between those sectors of our society that recognize the need for language skills (the demand side) and those who are responsible for providing it (the supply side). As the report put it, “the demand side is not playing its appropriate role in sending demand signals and supporting the supply side” (p. 3). The report's recommendation was to have five sectors of language supply and demand—education, industry, government, heritage communities, and overseas partners—work together to guarantee easy access to high‐quality language education to anyone who wants it. Bringing government and industry to the table has been particularly difficult. Some state‐level initiatives have proven very successful, but federal funding for language learning has had a more limited effect. There are a number of federal agencies that provide funding in support of language instruction, including the U.S. Departments of Education, Defense, and State. In addition to Title I and II funds, school districts also have the opportunity to use the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (U.S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref60">35</reflink>] ) and its Student Support and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) grants to fund language programs, although how many districts will decide to direct those funds to languages still remains to be seen.</p> <p>Significantly more success has been won with state‐level initiatives. In the past decade, a number of states have understood the need to bring to the table both the supply and the demand side of language learning and have developed DLI programs that focus not only on the obvious academic benefits for the learner, including both English and partner language skills, but also on the practical advantages for their states, such as having a workforce that can be competitive in a globalized economy. Utah, Delaware, Georgia, Wyoming, and North Carolina represent particularly strong state‐level efforts to engage a diversity of players in the development of DLI programs. For example, the Utah state‐sponsored DLI program, the first and largest of its kind in the United States, started in 2008 with the passing of the International Education Initiative Bill, which provided funding for Utah schools to begin DLI programs in Chinese, French, and Spanish (Utah State Legislature, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>] ). At the same time, then‐Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. initiated the Governor's Language Summit and the Governor's World Language Council, both with a goal to create a K–12 language roadmap for Utah. The Utah Language Roadmap for the 21st Century (Roberts & Talbot, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref62">29</reflink>] ) was developed as a collaborative project between education, government, and the business community. As the road map's vision statement made very clear, the intention was precisely to unify the needs and goals of the supply and demand sides: “World language capacity is crucial to Utah in order for it to realize its international business potential, strengthen its domestic economy, and create a better understanding of where Utahans belong in a global community of world language speakers and their cultures” (p. 4). The promise of high levels of linguistic and cultural proficiency at a reasonable cost made the Utah DLI an attractive proposition for parents, state legislators, and business leaders alike.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-15">Feasibility of financial and human resources</hd> <p>A crucial advantage of the DLI model may be its cost‐effectiveness. In the context of limited financial resources for education that has characterized the first two decades of this century, the DLI model offers two for one (content and language learning) while being a less expensive option than exploratory or sequential programs. As the AAAS report explained, “rather than adding additional units to an already crowded curriculum, or requiring new teachers dedicated only to language instruction, immersion courses incorporate language instruction into preexisting coursework (in math, science, reading) and rely on the same teachers who teach other subjects” (AAAS, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>] , p. 15). As an example, the Utah State Board of Education estimated that having a DLI program in a school represents an added cost of only $100 per student (K. Bowman, personal communication, October 11, 2017).</p> <p>While the shortage of qualified teachers represents another potential obstacle to building any viable elementary language programs, this obstacle can be even more serious for immersion programs because the level of language proficiency required of their teachers is often higher than for nonimmersion programs. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that across the nation and even around the world, teacher education programs cannot produce enough teachers to keep up with the demand (see Allen [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>] ] and Swanson & Mason [2018]). Thus, many state‐funded DLI programs have looked abroad to find a regular stream of well‐trained professionals. Memoranda of understanding signed at the state level with foreign governments or governmental agencies have brought native‐speaking guest teachers to DLI classrooms across the country. Like many other states, the state of Utah has agreements with China, France, Mexico, Spain, and Taiwan. The largest of these programs, through an agreement with the Spanish Ministry of Education, is providing 87 teachers from Spain during the 2017–2018 academic year (A. Sanz, personal communication, October 15, 2017). However, although importing talent from abroad may be an effective stopgap measure to address the current challenge, a long‐term solution requires that domestic institutions of higher education produce adequate numbers of highly qualified language teachers to meet future demand. Of course, the issue of supply and demand comes up again in this case. Because the presence of language programs in K–12 is still sparse and therefore the need for language teaching specialists is limited, there is not a strong motivation on the part of colleges and universities to produce more language teachers, particularly when compared to the demand in other subject areas. Filling the gap will depend greatly on the availability of alternative ways to train and certify bilingual educators such as the Bilingual Professional Development program recently approved by the state of California (Hopkinson, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref65">17</reflink>] ), which only highlights the need for strong collaborations between education and government.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-16">Articulation</hd> <p>Lack of articulation is a problem that has always plagued language teaching and learning. Anyone will sympathize with the plight of the language student who, after completing a sequence of language courses in elementary or middle school, reaches high school only to have to start all over at the beginning level, or the high school seniors who have completed several years of a world language but are placed into introductory courses in college because their exit proficiency levels were not documented using nationally recognized assessments or because their high school learning may not be considered worthy of college credit or sufficiently comparable to the goals and content of postsecondary courses.</p> <p>Reaching the levels of proficiency identified in Figure , especially reaching beyond the lowest layer, requires a long and continuous exposure to the language in the form of well‐articulated sequences that start at the elementary level and reach into postsecondary programs of study. Therefore, law makers, schools, and parents must place a special emphasis on guaranteeing that after completing an immersion program, students have a well‐defined path that will allow them not only to sustain but also to continue making progress toward higher and more nuanced linguistic and cultural proficiency. Well‐developed DLI programs can take students to the ACTFL Intermediate level of proficiency before they exit elementary education; when these are followed by secondary continuation programs that provide additional, albeit less intensive, opportunities for continued growth in bilingualism, biculturalism, and biliteracy, students can seamlessly transition to a range of options for advanced language study at the postsecondary level. Thus, the Utah Language Roadmap (Roberts & Talbot, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref66">29</reflink>] ) was conceived from its inception as a fully articulated K–16 continuum in which a student</p> <p>begins world language study in a dual‐immersion program as a kindergartner;</p> <p>continues content study in the world language in middle/junior high school;</p> <p>achieves Advanced Placement (AP) credit by ninth grade;</p> <p>has a choice to begin study of a third world language in high school, culminating in additional AP credit by graduation; and</p> <p>capstones the experience by entering higher education where professional major and core content courses are available for study in world languages, advanced literacy competence is obtained through continued study of the world language, and study abroad and internship program opportunities are available for linguistic and cultural competence and exchange. (p. 8)</p> <p>The Utah model, as illustrated in Figure , takes students through a 50/50 immersion sequence until grade 6. In grades 7 and 8 students take two courses in the target language, and in grade 9 students take the AP course and exam. If they pass the AP exam, students have the option to enroll in one upper‐level university bridge course in grades 10–12. These bridge courses are collaboratively developed by all postsecondary institutions in the state and offered by each institution to the school districts that they serve. They are also open to any students who pass the AP exam before their senior year in high school, which is a way to leverage and acknowledge the existing capabilities of heritage learners. The Bridge Program, as described by Rubio, Landes‐Lee, and Hacking ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref67">30</reflink>] ), “ensures uninterrupted language education and promotes an articulated vision for K‐16 language study, establishing a clear K‐16 pathway as well as a career pathway in two languages” (para. 3). This level of articulation is facilitated by a shared understanding of proficiency goals, with clear targets specified for each level of instruction and a system of standardized proficiency assessments that are mandated by the state and implemented yearly. Thus, the Utah elementary DLI program is built to target learning outcomes that go well beyond grade 6; it is designed to provide the basis for a long sequence that has the potential to lead learners to the highest levels of language and cultural proficiency.</p> <p>This four‐level model of articulation is ideal, and also absolutely necessary, to generate the desired scenario presented in Figure , in which elementary education provides access to a seamless learning path that can produce citizens with high levels of cultural and linguistic proficiency. In the case of Utah, it has only been possible through the close collaboration of educational stakeholders at all levels, from teachers and administrators of elementary DLI programs to language departments and deans of institutions of higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0128531952-17">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>It is true that one needs to be cautious when drawing conclusions from the data available. As an anonymous reviewer of an earlier version of this article pointed out, it is difficult to come up with reliable data on early language programs (number of programs, enrollments, and even outcomes) and therefore it is difficult to draw strong claims from what the numbers seem to indicate. What is undisputable, however, is that when compared to the citizens of most other industrialized countries and despite the cultural and linguistic diversity of the United States, the average American does not have the level of linguistic and cultural competence that is required to function as a global citizen. FLEX and nonintensive FLES models of language education that are common in many U.S. elementary schools can be useful as launching pads to higher levels of proficiency. Still, meeting the targets of higher levels of proficiency stated by our profession will require extended and well‐articulated language learning sequences that are supported by effective and, ideally, universally accessible elementary programs. Intensive FLES programs that are well designed and pave the way to strong middle and high school paths can provide the broad base needed in the pyramid of language skills described in this article. However, the particular characteristics of large‐scale, state‐supported DLI programs seem most appropriate as a vehicle to achieve the goals of universal access to language education and equip a significant percentage of American citizens with the necessary level of bilingualism and biculturalism that will allow them to carry out advanced academic or professional work in a second language. Nevertheless, DLI initiatives need to be wary of what Lipton ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref68">22</reflink>] ) called the “bandwagon” approach that doomed the FLES programs in the 1960s and 1970s, when trendiness was the reason for creating programs that often were “hastily started, with vague goals and without adequate planning and provision for the future” (p. 81). Well‐conceived DLI initiatives, such as the statewide programs implemented in Utah and other states, combine the necessary characteristics to produce citizens who can thrive in a world in which “the ability to understand, speak, read and write in world languages […] is critical to success in business, research and international relations” (AAAS, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>] , p. viii).</p> <ref id="AN0128531952-18"> <title>Notes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref6" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Fernando Rubio (PhD, State University of New York at Buffalo) is Associate Professor of Spanish Linguistics and Co‐Director of the Second Language Teaching and Research Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0128531952-19"> <title>REFERENCES</title> <blist> <bibtext>Abbott, M., Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., Fenstermacher, H., Fischer, D., Rivers, W. P., Slater, R., Weinberg, A., & Wiley, T. (2013). Languages for All? Final report: Can all U.S. residents have the opportunity to learn a second language? Retrieved October 10, 2017, from <ulink href="http://www.americancouncils.org/sites/default/files/LFA2013%5fFinalReport.pdf">http://www.americancouncils.org/sites/default/files/LFA2013%5fFinalReport.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from <ulink href="http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012%5fFINAL.pdf">http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012%5fFINAL.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref58" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Allen, L. Q. (2018). Teacher leadership and the advancement of teacher agency. Foreign Language Annals. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan12311 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS). (2017). America's languages: Investing in language education for the 21st century. Commission on Language Learning. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref11" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>American Councils for International Education. (2017). The national K‐12 foreign language enrollment survey report. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from https://<ulink href="http://www.americancouncils.org/sites/default/files/FLE‐report‐June17.pdf">www.americancouncils.org/sites/default/files/FLE‐report‐June17.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref1" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Bhattacharjee, Y. (2012, March 17). Why bilinguals are smarter. The New York Times. Retrieved September 30, 2017, from <ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the‐benefits‐of‐bilingualism.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the‐benefits‐of‐bilingualism.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Boyson, B. A., Semmer, M., Thompson, L. E., & Rosenbusch, M. H. (2013). Does beginning foreign language in kindergarten make a difference? Results of one district's study. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 246–263. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref37" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Brown, C. (1995). The case for foreign languages: The Glastonbury language program. Perspective, 7, 1–20. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref51" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Burkhauser, S., Steele, J. L., Li, J., Slater, R. O., Bacon, M., & Miller, T. (2016). Partner‐language learning trajectories in dual‐language immersion: Evidence from an urban district. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12218 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref17" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Center for Applied Linguistics. (2011). Directory of foreign language immersion programs in U.S. schools. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from <ulink href="http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/">http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref30" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Council of Europe. (2011). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from https://<ulink href="http://www.coe.int/en/web/common‐european‐framework‐reference‐languages/">www.coe.int/en/web/common‐european‐framework‐reference‐languages/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref3" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Devlin, K. (2015, July 13). Learning a foreign language a “must” in Europe, not so in America. Fact Tank. Retrieved September 15, 2017, from <ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact‐tank/2015/07/13/learning‐a‐foreign‐language‐a‐must‐in‐europe‐not‐so‐in‐america/">http://www.pewresearch.org/fact‐tank/2015/07/13/learning‐a‐foreign‐language‐a‐must‐in‐europe‐not‐so‐in‐america/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref25" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., Wudthayagorn, J., & Igarashi, K. (2000). Converging evidence: Attitudes, achievements, and instruction in the later years of FLES. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 377–393. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref5" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. (2012). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from <ulink href="http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5775673/EC‐XA‐12‐001‐EN.PDF/917d3746‐886e‐456a‐8b01‐1971013d1cef">http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5775673/EC‐XA‐12‐001‐EN.PDF/917d3746‐886e‐456a‐8b01‐1971013d1cef</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref4" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Eurostat. (2013). Two‐thirds of working age adults in the EU28 in 2011 state they know a foreign language. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from <ulink href="http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/5162658/3‐26092013‐AP‐EN.PDF/139b205d‐01bd‐4bda‐8bb9‐c562e8d0dfac">http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/5162658/3‐26092013‐AP‐EN.PDF/139b205d‐01bd‐4bda‐8bb9‐c562e8d0dfac</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref52" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J. (2015). Oral proficiency assessment of English‐proficient K‐8 Spanish immersion students. Modern Language Journal, 99, 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12275 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref65" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Hopkinson, A. (2017, July 11). New funds available to train new teachers in California. EdSource. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from https://edsource.org/2017/new‐funds‐available‐to‐train‐bilingual‐teachers‐in‐california/584497 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref14" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Kennedy, D. F., & De Lorenzo, W. E. (1994). Counterpoint to the sequential approach. Foreign Language Annals, 27, 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944‐9720.1994.tb02312.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref15" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Knop, C. K., & Sandrock, P. (1994). Counterpoint to the exploratory approach. Foreign Language Annals, 27, 74–76. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref47" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Lindholm‐Leary, K. J., & Block, N. (2010). Achievement in predominantly low SES/Hispanic dual language schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050902777546 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref55" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Lindholm‐Leary, K. & Borsato, G. (2001). Impact of two‐way bilingual elementary programs on students' attitudes toward school and college. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from <ulink href="http://crede.berkeley.edu/pdf/rr10.pdf">http://crede.berkeley.edu/pdf/rr10.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref68" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Lipton, G. C. (1998). “A century of progress”: A retrospective on FLES* programs 1898‐1998. Hispania, 81, 75–87. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref44" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Marian, V., Shook, A., & Schroeder, S. R. (2013). Bilingual two‐way immersion programs benefit academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 36, 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2013.818075 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref21" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Met, M. (1985). Decisions! Decisions! Decisions! Foreign language in the elementary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 469–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944‐9720.1985.tb00984.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref40" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World‐readiness standards for learning languages (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref45" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Padilla, A. M., Fan, L., Xu, Z., & Silva, D. (2013). A Mandarin/English two‐way immersion program: Language proficiency and academic achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12060 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref9" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Pufahl, I., & Rhodes, N. C. (2011). Foreign language instruction in U.S. schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 258–288. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref2" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Rivers, W. P., Robinson, J. P., Harwood, P. G., & Brecht, R. D. (2013). Language votes: Attitudes toward foreign language policies. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 329–338. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref62" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Roberts, G., & Talbot, S. (2009). Utah language roadmap for the 21st century. Retrieved October 7, 2017, from https://thelanguageflagship.org/media/docs/roadmaps/utah%20language%20road%20for%20the%2021st%20century.pdf </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref67" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Rubio, F., Landes‐Lee, J., & Hacking, J. (2017, June 13). Behind one successful high school‐higher education partnership. Education Week. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from <ulink href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global%5flearning/2017/06/%5fsuccessful%5fhigh%5fschoolhigher%5feducation%5fpartnerships%5fthe%5futah%5fworld%5flanguage%5fexample.html?cmp=eml‐enl‐eu‐news3">http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global%5flearning/2017/06/%5fsuccessful%5fhigh%5fschoolhigher%5feducation%5fpartnerships%5fthe%5futah%5fworld%5flanguage%5fexample.html?cmp=eml‐enl‐eu‐news3</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref46" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Steele, J. L., Slater, R. O., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., Li, J., Burkhauser, S., & Bacon, M. (2017). The effects of dual‐language immersion programs on student achievement: Evidence from lottery data. American Educational Research Journal [Centennial Issue], 53, 282–306. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216634463 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Swanson, P., & Mason, S. (2018). The world language teacher shortage: Taking a new direction. Foreign Language Annals. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan12321 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref16" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2014). English learners in North Carolina dual language programs: Year 3 of this study: School year 2009‐10. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref39" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref60" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from https://<ulink href="http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn">www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref61" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Utah State Legislature. (2008). International education initiative: Critical language program. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from https://le.utah.gov/∼2008/bills/sbillenr/SB0041.htm </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref54" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Watzinger‐Tharp, J., & Rubio, F. (2017). The linguistic performance of dual language immersion students. Manuscript in preparation. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Percentage of U.S. elementary schools offering world languages. *Indicates a statistically significant decrease from 1997 to 2008. Adapted from Pufahl and Rhodes ()</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Ideal distribution of the population according to language skills. Note: Adapted from Abbott et al. ()</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Articulation in the Utah model. Note: Created by Jill Landes‐Lee, University of Utah; https://l2trec.utah.edu/utah-dual-immersion/index.php</p> <aug> <p>By Fernando Rubio</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1172866
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Language Education in Elementary Schools: Meeting the Needs of the Nation
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rubio%2C+Fernando%22">Rubio, Fernando</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Foreign+Language+Annals%22"><i>Foreign Language Annals</i></searchLink>. Spr 2018 51(1):90-103.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Immersion+Programs%22">Immersion Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22FLES%22">FLES</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sequential+Approach%22">Sequential Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Descriptions%22">Program Descriptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Articulation+%28Education%29%22">Articulation (Education)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Advanced+Students%22">Advanced Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Financial+Support%22">Financial Support</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Human+Resources%22">Human Resources</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Development%22">Program Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Programs%22">Second Language Programs</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/flan.12313
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0015-718X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article briefly reviews the social, political, and economic context that explains the present status of elementary language education in the United States and addresses the challenges identified by recent reports on the state of language education in the United States. Different curricular models of world language education--exploratory, sequential, and immersion--are discussed in regard to their ability to meet the need, expressed by the profession, to provide universal access to language education and produce graduates who have advanced levels of language proficiency. The article argues that in order to be successful, elementary programs have to be built with support and input from a variety of stakeholders, with careful consideration of the financial and human resources needed and with long-term articulation plans. A state-supported immersion program is used to illustrate how the integration of all these factors can lead to successful and scalable programs.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1172866
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1172866
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/flan.12313
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 90
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Immersion Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: FLES
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sequential Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Descriptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Articulation (Education)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Advanced Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Financial Support
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Human Resources
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Programs
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Language Education in Elementary Schools: Meeting the Needs of the Nation
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rubio, Fernando
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0015-718X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Foreign Language Annals
              Type: main
ResultId 1