Comments of Judy Pehrson

President of the Pennsylvania Council for International Education (PaCIE)

Before the State Board of Education,

January 19, 2006

We strongly urge the State Board of Education to adopt world language standards for all students. We request that the World Language Academic Standards be placed back in their original position with all other core and non-core content areas in Chapter 4.

I’m here today representing the Pennsylvania Council for International Education (PaCIE), an organization founded over 35 years ago to advance international education in the Commonwealth and to support linkages between K-12 and tertiary institutions. Our membership includes college and university faculty and international education administrators as well as K-12 administrators and language and social studies teachers.

Several of my colleagues from PaCIE have appeared before you previously to set forth important reasons for adopting world language standards for all students. You also received a December 5, 2005 resolution from the Pennsylvania International Education Advisory Council – a body recently established by the Pennsylvania Department of Education of which PaCIE is a member – that urged you to adopt world language standards for all students and pointed out reasons for doing so.

Rather than going over the familiar ground of why the standards are needed, I thought it might be more helpful to deal with some of the questions and misconceptions that seem to have arisen about the standards.

First, it has been argued that proficiency in world languages is too hard to define.

In reality, as you know, proposed Academic Standards for World Languages already exist. They are modeled after the National Standards for Foreign Languages, which are used as the basis of standards for all states. These standards are very clear and specific. They do not, incidentally, say that proficiency in world languages would be at the same levels and benchmarks as those for English language arts, as some have erroneously claimed.

Second, it has been argued that it is impossible to teach world languages to all students, and since the No Child Left Behind Act requires the least restrictive environment for all children, it’s better not to require all children to study languages.

World language teachers, just like teachers of all other content areas, believe that all students can contribute in the world languages classroom. These teachers provide differentiated and targeted instruction and assessment in order to insure that all of their students are successful, including those with special learning needs. The adoption of the proposed standards will insure that the world languages classroom is an inclusive environment.

Third, concern has been expressed that standards will require highly qualified teachers, which could put a mandate on school districts that neither the state nor federal government will fund.

The No Child Left Behind Act already makes foreign languages a “core academic subject” and provides that all teachers must be “highly qualified” – that is, they must be certified in their content area or be able to demonstrate competence in all of the academic subjects taught. In other words, highly qualified teachers are already required under the Act in all core subjects. So it is not standards that result in the need for highly qualified teachers. Indeed, the fact that NCLB makes world languages a core subject makes the decision not to have standards quite incomprehensible.

The unfounded mandate concern must also be considered in the context of a roll-out plan over a five- or six-year period. The proposed standards allow for different entry points. And the trend toward beginning second language study at the elementary level may actually reduce the possible financial impact of mandating world languages standards for all students because many districts have world language programs in place.

Fourth, a concern has been raised that we don’t, and won’t, have enough language teachers.

The concern over building teacher capacity seems particularly specious and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we are not going to teach foreign languages to all students, we of course are not going to have educators interested in or prepared to teach foreign languages. But with a phase-in arrangement, we can start working now to develop the teaching force we need.

Also, it is my understanding that today the Chapter 49 Committee is going to be recommending that the Board approves regulations dealing with a number of different kinds of alternative certifications to handle situations where there are not sufficient numbers of certified teachers. These measures include intern certificates; long-term substitute permits issued for an indeterminate period to fill positions open due lack of certified personnel; emergency permits that will help fill new positions or vacancies from retirements, deaths, illness; and so forth. A pertinent question is why can’t these alternative certifications be used for world language teachers?

In addition, I believe that the Board has been considering regulations to enhance preparation of all teachers by giving them training in special education. It is my understanding that the Pennsylvania Department of Education favors this dual preparation because it would insure that all teachers are able to teach all students. My question is, then, if you are trying to come up with certification arrangements that will ensure that all teachers are able to teach all students, then why are there objections to teaching foreign languages to all students? There seems to be a policy disconnect here.

Finally, we point out that Governor Rendell has recommended in Project 720, his high school reform project, that a foreign language be part of every student’s core-curriculum as a condition for graduation. If all students must take a foreign language, then we have to have standards. It seems that the Board may be at cross-purposes with the Governor on this issue. We hope the contradiction can be resolved and world languages standards instituted for all students.

Thank you very much.