Foreign Language in the Elementary School Program

(1)

Foreign Language in the Elementary

School Program

Year One

Interim Evaluation Report

SY 2008-09

Appendices

September 2009

Fairfax County Public Schools

(2)

APPENDIX A

FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION BY SCHOOL AND GRADE

(3)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Program Evaluation September 2009

A-1

Implementation by School and Grade

School Language Grades Implementing in SY 2008-09 Additional Grades Implementing in SY 2009-10 Cluster 1 Chesterbrook Chinese 1, 2 3 Clearview Spanish 1, 2 3

Franklin Sherman Spanish 1, 2, 3 4

Kent Gardens French 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 NA Cluster 2

Cunningham Park Spanish 1, 2 3

Fairhill Chinese 1, 2 3

Graham Road Spanish 1, 2 3

Pine Spring Spanish 1, 2 3

Shrevewood Chinese 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6

Wolftrap Chinese 1, 2, 3, 4 5

Cluster 3

Beech Tree Arabic 1, 2 3

Little Run Spanish 1, 2 3

Mantua Italian 3, 4, 5, 6 NA

Sleepy Hollow Arabic 1, 2 3

Cluster 4

Belle View Spanish 1, 2 3

Gunston Japanese 1, 2 3 Mount Vernon Woods Chinese 1 2 Woodley Hills Spanish 1, 2 3 Cluster 5 Clermont Chinese 1, 2, 3 4 Cluster 6 Fairview Chinese 1 2 Sangster Spanish 1, 2 3

Terra Centre Spanish 1, 2 3

Cluster 7

Brookfield Spanish 1 2

Daniels Run Latin 3, 4, 5, 6 NA

Greenbriar West Spanish 1, 2 3

Oak Hill Chinese 1, 2 3

Providence

Chinese 1, 2 3

Latin 3, 4, 5, 6 (shifting 3 to Chinese)

Willow Springs Spanish 1, 2 3

Cluster 8

Floris Spanish 1, 2, 3, 4 5

Navy Spanish 1, 2 3

Terraset Spanish 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 NA

(4)

APPENDIX B

FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITERATURE REVIEW

(5)

B-1

Foreign Language in the Elementary School

Literature Review

The purpose of this literature review is to provide a context for foreign language learning and describe effective program models and associated outcomes. The review provides the reader with an overview of the need for foreign language proficiency in the 21st century, describes models for foreign language instruction, summarizes the qualities of successful programs, and reviews the literature regarding the impact of foreign language instruction on key outcomes: student academic performance and language proficiency.

Need for Foreign Language Competence

Periodically since the 1950’s with the launch of Sputnik and again during the height of the cold war in the early 1980’s, there have been calls for increased attention to foreign language instruction in the United States. Now in the 21st century, globalization and the war on terror have again raised the call for creating a national framework to foster foreign language instruction and cross-cultural knowledge in the United States. In their paper, Building the Foreign Language Capacity We Need: Toward a Comprehensive National Language Framework, Jackson and Malone (2009) argue that there are five pressing reasons to build the nation’s language capacity:

1. National security and diplomacy – The events of September 11, 2001, highlighted the need for language proficiency and cultural knowledge to maintain U.S. security and to cultivate relations with a wider community of non-western countries. Certain languages were identified as critical languages and targeted for capacity building including Arabic, Persian, Indic and Turkic languages, Chinese, and Korean.

2. International commerce and economic development – The National Committee for Economic Development issued a seminal report in 2006 calling for increased foreign language skills and cultural awareness for students to maintain the United States as a global leader. The report identified several languages as critical to maintaining global economic competitiveness including Chinese, Japanese, Hindi-Urdu, Russian, and Portuguese.

3. Global perspectives and knowledge for all Americans – In an increasingly interconnected world, businesses, even small businesses, are competing for clients internationally and domestically with different language and cultural backgrounds. Businesses have a competitive advantage if their staff can communicate in their clients’ native languages and understand their clients’ cultural backgrounds.

4. Needs of an increasingly diverse U.S. citizenry – As diversity within the United States grows, service providers must be able to communicate in the languages spoken in the communities they serve. Medical professionals, law enforcement, fire and rescue workers, and social service providers, in particular, need language and cultural competence to perform their jobs.

5. Scholarship and research – To maintain its leadership role in scholarship and research, the United States requires researchers who are able to access information about advances that are written in various other languages.

Fairfax County, and the larger Washington D.C. metropolitan area, is a nexus for U.S. intelligence agencies, international organizations and businesses; hence, there is a great need to develop foreign language speakers who can address the needs of governments, businesses, and the non-profit sector. Additionally, it is a very diverse area with more than 25% of the residents of Fairfax County born in another country (13% Asian, 10% Hispanic or Latino, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 2006), and nearly one in five children in the Metropolitan Washington region speaking a

(6)

B-2

needs to develop a cadre of service providers who can communicate with its linguistically and culturally diverse population.

Models for Elementary Foreign Language Instruction

There are many different models for teaching a foreign language in the United States. Programs begin at various grade levels and have different sequences and intensities of instruction, all leading to different outcomes. To aid policymakers in selecting a model to meet their proficiency goals, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) published the ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners. The guidelines suggest the level of language performance that can be expected for various sequences of instruction beginning at different grade levels (Figure B-1). Descriptors are based on information gathered from foreign language professionals representing a variety of program models and articulation sequences. Descriptors are appropriate for languages more commonly taught in the United States. Descriptors assume a sustained sequence of standards-based, performance-outcomes, language instruction. The figure suggests that for Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) to meet its goal that students graduate with communicative competence in a language other than English, instruction needs to begin early in elementary school and be articulated through middle and preferably high school. Students who achieve at the intermediate-mid or higher are considered communicatively competent in the language.

Figure B-1

ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners

A d v a n c e d Ad v a n c e d In te rmed iat e P re -A d v a n c e In te r-med iat e N o v ic e No v ic e K-4 K-8 K-12 5-8 5-12 7-12 9-10 9-12

The remainder of this review focuses on foreign language instruction for elementary-aged students. There are three primary models of foreign language instruction for elementary-aged students, Immersion, FLES, and FLEX (Center for Applied Linguistics, n.d., 2006a, 2006b, 2008). The models and their variations can be distinguished by program goals, contact time, and frequency.

(7)

B-3

and the second language. A secondary or corollary goal is language proficiency in the second language. Immersion programs involve the most contact time of all models. In general, a foreign language is the language used to teach content, not the subject of instruction.

Immersion programs vary in intensity. In total immersion, students receive instruction in all content areas in the foreign language. In Partial Immersion, up to 50% of the subjects are provided instruction in the foreign language. In Two-Way Immersion, equal emphasis is given to English and a non-English language. In Two-Way Immersion, native speakers of the non-English language comprise one to two thirds of the class, with the remainder being native speakers of English. In all immersion programs, the proficiency goal is expressed as Intermediate to Advanced proficiency in a language other than English. FLES programs focus on language proficiency in the target language, an introduction to literacy in the home and target languages, building cultural knowledge, and connecting language learning to the content of the early grades’ curriculum. The scope and sequence of the FLES program model are taught by a qualified foreign language teacher. Students learn grammar indirectly. A bilingual/multilingual grade-level teacher teaches the foreign language. The curriculum is locally-specific. Content-enriched FLES programs offer instruction on core content areas to reinforce the curriculum and to provide a meaningful context for learning the target language. Contact time varies by number of sessions each week and the number of minutes per session. The “most effective” FLES programs meet three to five sessions per week for 30 minutes each session (Genesee, Holobow, Lambert, & Chartrand, 1989; and Genesee, 2000). The proficiency goal is expressed as advanced to fluent (in a language other than English) or “functional fluency” in a language other than English by the completion of the elementary program.

FLEX programs serve as an introduction to language learning and instill an awareness of different cultures, an appreciation of language/culture study, and motivation for further language study. The FLEX model introduces learners to one or more languages. After completing a FLEX program, students go on to a beginning language program. Exposure to a single language may take place from one to several days a week over six to nine weeks. The proficiency goal is expressed as novice to basic.

Best Practices in Elementary Foreign Language Instruction

A summary of the most cited studies of domestic and international foreign language programs suggests a relatively short list of “best practices” for FLES and other foreign language models (Christian, Pufahl, and Rhodes, 2004, 2005; DiFino & Lamardino, 2004; Genesee, Holobow, Lambert, & Chartrand, 1989; Genesee, 2000; Gilzow and Rhodes, 2000; Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1998; Met, 2004; Pufahl, Rhodes, & Christian, 2000; Thanasoulas, 2001; and Torres, 1998):

A well-articulated, coherent framework for instruction and assessment including curriculum designed to meet ACTFL’s five standards for foreign language instruction (i.e., five C’s − communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and community);

Defined benchmarks for student performance and standards for teaching with regular student assessment, and program evaluation;

Alignment between type of program selected and goals for language learning and strong school-based leadership;

Authentic tasks, enjoyable and meaningful lessons, taught through core instructional content (e.g., mathematics, social studies, science), with sufficient intensity to motivate students;

An early start, beginning instruction in early elementary and articulating instruction through middle and high school;

(8)

B-4 capacities;

Sufficient contact time to ensure foreign language learning four or five days per week for 60-90 minutes per session;

Defined target student audience while providing accessibility for all students; and

Well-trained foreign language teachers and well-qualified teachers who receive rigorous teacher education and regular professional development.

A best practice is a guide or benchmark. While there is some consistency among researchers about best practices for foreign language instruction, there is insufficient research data to conclude, without reservation, the extent to which a particular practice or feature (e.g., collaborative teaching, specific contact time and frequency, etc.) contributes to optimal learning in elementary foreign language instruction. Nonetheless, most of the practices outlined above appear reasonable, and the preponderance of the evidence across studies supports their importance for developing programs that will lead to proficiency in another language.

Outcomes Associated with Effective Elementary Foreign Language Instruction

In general, foreign language instruction has been associated with the following positive categories of outcomes: general academic proficiency through integrative instruction, second language acquisition, personal and cultural growth, and improved cognitive development. Armstrong and Rogers (1997), Cooper (1987), Curtain and Pesola (1994), Saunders (1998), and Taylor (2004) concluded that elementary students with foreign language instruction outperformed their peers in other subjects and on standardized English and mathematics tests. In studies conducted by Boyson (1997), Boyson and Thompson (1998), and Harris, Hart & Met (1998), elementary foreign language students and English as a Second Language (ESL) students attained foreign language proficiency and/or demonstrated increased knowledge of concepts in other subjects. Donato and Terry (1995), Dumas (1999), Garfinkel and Tabor (1991), and Genesee (1985) observed personal and cultural growth for students in elementary foreign language programs. Dumas (1999) and Mechelli, et al. (2004) show that learning a second language increases the density of grey matter that most likely relates to brain organization, an effect with multiple benefits. In addition, FLES programs have generated specific outcomes that can be attributed to their specific designs and implementations. FLES programs that include content integration have been associated with academic achievement in multiple subjects, higher standardized test scores, and benefits for regular and specific student subpopulations. For instance, in a study that many in foreign language instruction consider a “seminal” work, Curtain & Pesola (1994) reported that FLES students attained higher academic achievement in other subjects such as reading, social studies, and mathematics, performed better on SATs and ACTs, especially verbal, and experienced no loss in basic skills. These outcomes appear to be consistent across different quality implementations and modalities. Additionally, in a study of more than 144 FLES models, Robinson (1992) concluded that FLES students outperform students without a foreign language on standardized tests and tests of basic skills in English, mathematics and social studies. In Cooper’s study (1987), FLES students achieved higher SAT verbal scores than the control group, and FLES students, with multiple years of foreign language instruction, performed better on SAT subtests than students who had less foreign language instruction.

In one of the few comprehensive, longitudinal studies on the impacts of FLES, Taylor, Feyten, Meros, and Nutta (2008), Taylor (2004), and Taylor-Ward (2003) found that FLES teachers, who reinforce other content skills despite model variations, contributed to FLES student success at each grade level in outperforming control peers on English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies tests.

(9)

B-5

Third grade FLES students achieved “statistically” significant gains in mathematics and home language – even FLES students with less mathematics instruction outperformed non-FLES students in mathematics (Armstrong & Rogers, 1997). The FLES students received mathematics content in a foreign language, three sessions per week for 30 minutes each session, with varying intensities of all modalities. Saunders’ (1998) findings were similar. FLES students who received foreign language instruction five days a week for 30 minutes each session for four years significantly outperformed a control group that had no foreign language and was one year older on standardized mathematics assessments.

Some FLES research has documented the benefits of the program for certain subpopulations of students. Harris, Hart, and Met (1998) found that daily FLES classes, with FLES in the core curriculum, reinforced concepts in other subjects for ESL and other at-risk students. In FLES and Immersion programs, Dumas (1999) concluded that race, gender, and non-language academic level did not intervene on the achievement of foreign language students in the English section of the state’s basic skills test.

The majority of the literature on FLES programs has focused on the benefits of foreign language learning for student academic achievement. Less research has focused on the language outcomes of FLES students. This may be due in part to the different levels of instructional intensity offered by various programs, so there is not a consistent benchmark for expected performance. Additionally, there is a lack of valid and reliable tests for school districts to measure progress. Assessment is also time intensive since it must include conversational and writing proficiency. The few studies in the literature that have focused on gaining proficiency in the target language have found that students do gain expected levels of proficiency in the target language (Boyson, 1997; Boyson & Thompson, 1998) vocabulary knowledge and conversational knowledge (Bernards Township Public Schools, 2004).

Conclusions

In an increasingly global and “flat” world (Friedman, 2005), the need for an educated citizenry with the ability to speak a language other than English and understand other cultures has risen to the forefront of national concern. A renewed focus has been placed on implementing foreign language programs in the public schools, beginning as early as kindergarten (Branaman & Rhodes, 1998). To develop the levels of proficiency required, ACTFL recommends a course of language study beginning in elementary school. Almost half of the foreign language programs in elementary schools follow a FLES model which focuses on developing basic conversational proficiency, introductory literacy, cultural knowledge, and in the case of content-embedded programs, instruction in core content areas (Branaman & Rhodes, 1998). Although FLES programs vary widely in the amount of instructional time they provide, research suggests that, in general, FLES programs improve achievement in core academics and develop students’ language proficiency in the target language. Based on the literature and practice knowledge, a core set of best practices has been developed; however, careful research has not detailed how these core practices are related to achieving different levels and types of outcomes (e.g., academic achievement, language proficiency, and cultural knowledge). In general, it is expected that the strongest programs will have a well-articulated curriculum tied to core content with regular assessment, engaging instruction of at least 75 to 120 minutes a week, and ongoing professional development for teachers.

(10)

B-6 References

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, (1998). ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Alexandria, VA.

Armstrong, P. W., & Rogers, J. D. (1997). Basic skills revisited: The effects of foreign language instruction on reading, math and language arts. Learning Languages, 2(3), 20-31.

Bernards Township Public Schools. (2004). K-5 world language program evaluation. Basking Ridge, NJ: Author. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from

http://www2.bernardsboe.com/BernardsBOE/CMFiles/Docs/Curriculum/K-5%20World%20Lang%20Prog%20Eval%202005.pdf

Boyson, B. (1997). Listening and speaking assessment of third grade students in the Georgia elementary school foreign languages model program. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Boyson, B., & Thompson, L. (1998). Student oral proficiency assessment of fifth grade students in the Georgia elementary school foreign languages model program. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Branaman & Rhodes. (1998). Foreign Language Instruction in the United States: A national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Center for Applied Linguistics; Washington, DC.

Brookings Institution, The. (2009, January). Demographic and economic trends in the national capital region and their effects on children, youth and families. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

Center for Applied Linguistics. (n.d.). Definitions of immersion programs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 6, 2009, from http://www.cal.org/resources/immersion/

Center for Applied Linguistics. (2006a). Directory of foreign language immersion programs in U.S. schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 6, 2009, from

http://www.cal.org/resources/immersion/

Center for Applied Linguistics. (2006b). Directory of two-way bilingual immersion programs in the U.S.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 6, 2009, from http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/

Center for Applied Linguistics. (2008). Bibliography of two-way immersion research. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 6, 2009, from http://www.cal.org/twi/bib.htm

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. (n.d.). Bibliography of foreign language immersion research. Minneapolis, MN: Author. Retrieved August 6, 2009, from

http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/bibliographies/one-way.html

Christian, D., Pufahl, I. U., & Rhodes, N. C. (2004). Language learning: A worldwide perspective.

Educational Leadership, 62(4), 24-30.

Christian, D., Pufahl, I., & Rhodes, N. C. (2005). Fostering foreign language proficiency: What the U.S. can learn from other countries. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 226-228. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Committee for Economic Development (2006). Education for Global Leadership: The Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S. Economic and National Security

(11)

B-7

Cooper, T.C. (1987). Foreign language study and SAT-verbal scores. The Modern Language Journal, 71(4), 381-387. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Curtain, H., & Pesola, C. A. B. (1994). Language and children: Making the match. White Plains, NY: Longman.

DiFino, S., & Lamardino, L. (2004). Language and learning disabilities: The ultimate foreign language challenge. Foreign Language Annals, 37(3), 399.

Donato, R., & Terry, R. M. (1995). Foreign language learning: The journey of a lifetime. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Dumas, L. S. (1999). Learning a second language: Exposing your child to a new world of words boosts her brainpower, vocabulary, and self-esteem. Child, (February), 72, 74, 76-77.

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century, Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York: New York.

Garfinkel, A., & Tabor, K. E. (1991). Elementary school foreign languages and English reading achievement: A new view of the relationship. Foreign Language Annals, 24(5), 375-382.

Second Language Learning through Immersion: A Review of U.S. Programs Author(s): Fred Genesee. Source: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Winter, 1985), pp. 541-561.

Genesee, F., Holobow, N. E., Lambert, W. E., & Chartrand, L. (1989). Three elementary school alternatives for learning through a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 250-263. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Genesee, F. (2000). Brain research: Implications for second language learning. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics [Center for Applied Linguistics].

Gilzow, D. F., & Rhodes, N. (2000). Establishing high-quality foreign language programs in elementary schools: Perspectives on policy and practice. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED461288)

Harris, J., Hart, A., & Met, M. (1998). What are the advantages and disadvantages of FLES, FLES, and Immersion: An assistant superintendent and curriculum specialist view the models. In M. Met (Ed.),

Critical issues in early language learning: Building for our children’s future (pp. 11-12). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman-Addison-Wesley.

Jackson, F. H., & Malone, M. E. (2009, April). Building the foreign language capacity we need: Toward a comprehensive strategy for a national language framework. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved August 9, 2009, from http://www.cal.org/resources/languageframework.pdf Kretschmer, R., Jr., & Kretschmer, L. (1998). Is foreign language education for all learners? In M. Met (Ed.), Critical issues in early language learning: Building for our children’s future (pp. 65-68). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman-Addison-Wesley.

Mechelli, A., Crinion, J. T., Noppeney, U., O’Doherty, J., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R.S., et al. (2004). Neurolinguistics: Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature 431(7010), 757.

(12)

B-8 218. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. (2006). Fairfax County and the Washington region: A look at economic and demographic characteristics. Washington, DC: Author.

Pufahl, I., Rhodes, N. C., & Christian, D. (2000). Foreign language teaching: What the United States can learn from other countries. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics [Center for Applied Linguistics].

Robinson, D. W. (1992). The Cognitive, Academic and Attitudinal Benefits of Early Language Learning. In Met, M., ed. Critical Issues in Early Language Learning. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Saunders, C. M. (1998). The effect of the study of a foreign language in the elementary school on scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and an analysis of student-participant attitudes and abilities.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

Taylor, C. (2004). The relationship between elementary school foreign language study in grades three through five and Louisiana students' academic achievement on standardized tests. Learning Languages, 10(1), 16-18. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.

Taylor, G., Feyten, C., Meros, J., & Nutta, J. (2008). Effects of FLES on reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement: A multi-method longitudinal study. Learning Languages, 13(2), 30-37. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.

Taylor-Ward, C. (2003). The relationship between elementary school foreign language study in grades three through five and academic achievement on the Iowa tests of basic skills (ITBS) and the fourth-grade Louisiana educational assessment program for the 21st century (LEAP 21) test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Retrieved August 13, 2009, from

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-1103103-111054/unrestricted/Taylor-Ward_dis.pdf

Thanasoulas, D. (2001). The importance of teaching culture in the foreign language classroom. Radical Pedagogy, 3. Retrieved August 6, 2009, from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue3_3/7-thanasoulas.html

Torres, R. (1998). Is foreign language education for all learners? In M. Met (Ed.), Critical issues in early language learning: Building for our children’s future (pp. 60-61). Glenview, IL: Scott

(13)

APPENDIX C

FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE-LEVEL PROGRAM MODEL

(14)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Program Evaluation September 2009

C-1

Site-Level Program Model

*Bolded outcomes represent critical program outcomes investigated in this program evaluation.

FLES Teachers Classroom Teachers

FLES instructional materials FLES teacher laptops

FLES lesson delivery Contributing to the

FLES Blackboard community Collaborative planning

between FLES and classroom teachers Professional Development Short-Term Student outcomes: Increased self-esteem Fearlessness of language Cultural awareness Flexible thinking Other outcomes: Teacher cultural awareness Intermediate Student outcomes: Near-native pronunciation Academic achievement Other outcomes:

Lowered need for planning Consistent implementation Long-Term Student outcomes: Foreign language achievement at Novice level Other outcomes: Consistency of student outcomes

(15)

APPENDIX D

FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EVALUATION DESIGN

(16)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Program Evaluation September 2009

D-1

PROGRAM EVALUATION SUMMARY

I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

Project/Program Title: Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES)

Project/Program Contact and Department:

Paula Patrick, ISD

Comprehensive Evaluation Projected Start Date:

August 2008

Comprehensive Evaluation Projected Completion Date:

October2011

Expected Deliverables: Interim Report (Year 1) – October 2009

Interim Report (Year 2) – October 2010 Final Report (Year 3) – October 2011

OPE Lead Evaluator(s): Lidi Hruda

Evaluation Team Members: Marty Smith, Cluster I

Tonya Cox, Gunston ES Steve Gossin, Cherry Run ES Paula Patrick, ISD

Robert Harrison, Glasgow MS Marie Hinton, ISD

Recardo Sockwell, DA Chantal Follett, DA

Source of Request for the Evaluation:

School Board/Superintendent

Background/History: The purpose of the FLES program is to provide elementary students with learning opportunities in a language other

than English. It is one of several FCPS offerings at the elementary level that support the School Board’s Student Achievement Goal 1.2 (“communicative competence in one or more languages other than English by high school graduation”). The School Board goal has generated increased interest in potentially expanding the program to all FCPS elementary schools to make FLES a universal aspect of elementary instruction within FCPS.

Purpose of the Evaluation: To provide the FCPS School Board and Leadership Team with evidence-based judgments about the effectiveness of

the program’s model and its implementation in developing communicative competence in students, particularly in comparison to other possible models of elementary instruction (i.e., immersion).

(17)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

D-2

II. PROPOSED PROGRAM EVALUATION DESIGN

Project/Program Title: Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES)

OPE Lead Evaluator(s): Lidi Hruda

Evaluation Questions Data Source Data Collection

Method

Data Collection

Time Line Data Analysis

Reporting Time Line

REQUIRED PROGRAM COMPONENTS I. Program Definition 1a. To what extent is the FLES

programmatic approach designed to contribute at the elementary level to Student Achievement Goal 1.2? 1b. To what extent is the FLES program designed to meet the needs of external forces (i.e., business community, government, etc.)?

Program manager Interview Year 1 (Spring 2009) (Years 2 and 3, only if program definition changes)

Meta-analytic work on FLES best practice and qualitative comparison to FCPS FLES model. Year 1 (Spring 2009) Quantitative rating based on standard Program Definition criteria used in FCPS program evaluations

Interim Report, Year 1 (Fall 2009)

Final Report, Year 3 (Fall 2011)

External studies and evaluations of FLES programs

Literature Review

Program Documents Record Review Websites and

documents of external stakeholders

Record Review

II. Fidelity of Implementation 2. To what extent do participating sites

implement the program as defined by central office?

FLES Classes Classroom Observations Year 1 (Spring 2009) Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011) Quantitative and qualitative comparisons of data to expectations of program model. Quantitative rating based on standard Fidelity of Implementation criteria used in FCPS program evaluations

Program Documents about Fidelity of Implementation or used for Monitoring System

Record Review

FLES Teachers Survey or focus group Regular Classroom Teachers Survey or focus group Principals Survey FLES Blackboard Site Record Review Program manager Interview

(18)

D-3

Method

Data Collection

III. Outcomes 3a. To what extent do students

participating in FLES meet the selected standards described by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language (i.e., Communication, Cultures, Connections)? 3b. Do some groups of students demonstrate stronger achievement benefits from FLES than others (i.e., LEP, Special Education)?

Grade 3 and 5 Foreign Language PALS

Standardized testing Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011) Descriptives of FLES student performance Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011) Quantitative comparisons between FLES students and Immersion students (FL, SOL, and culture) Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011) Quantitative comparisons between FLES students and elementary students not receiving FL instruction (SOL and culture)

Year 3 (Spring 2011) Quantitative rating based on standard Outcomes criteria used in FCPS program evaluations

Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011)

Grade 4 and 5 SOL Standardized testing Year 3 (Spring 2011) Cultural Awareness

Measure

Survey Year 3 (Spring 2011) Principals Survey Year 1 (Spring 2009) (Years 2 and 3, only if needed)

FLES Teachers Survey Year 1 (Spring 2009) Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011) Regular Classroom

Teachers Survey Year 1 (Spring 2009) _{Year 2 (Spring 2010)} Year 3 (Spring 2011)

(19)

D-4

Method

Data Collection

IV. Cost Analysis 4. To what extent does the FLES program

maximize cost-effectiveness, particularly in comparison to elementary Immersion programs?

Budget Documents Record Review Year 1 (Spring 2009) Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011) Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of funding (including external sources) and cost optimization level Year 1 (Spring 2009) Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011) Cost-effectiveness comparison of FLES and Immersion Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011) Quantitative rating based on standard Program Costs criteria used in FCPS program evaluations

Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011)

Information provided on cost description and optimization; no rating of cost-effectiveness in Year 1

ISD Budget Liaison Interview Program Manager Interview Program Documents

about Funding

Record Review

Principals Survey

Outcome data NA – already collected for other questions

SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM COMPONENTS A. Monitoring System

5. To what extent does the FLES program have procedures in place to monitor program implementation and student progress?

Program manager Interview Year 1 (Spring 2009) Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011) Qualitative analysis of data; Quantitative rating based on standard program quality rating scale used in FCPS program evaluations

Year 1 (Spring 2009)

Principals Survey

FLES Teachers Survey or focus group

Program Documents used for Monitoring System

(20)

D-5

Method

Data Collection

B. Professional Development 6. To what extent do professional learning

opportunities offered to FLES and classroom teachers support FLES program implementation at schools?

Program manager Interview Year 1 (Spring 2009) Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011) Qualitative analysis of data; Quantitative rating based on standard program quality rating scale used in FCPS program evaluations

Year 1 (Spring 2009) Year 2 (Spring 2010) Year 3 (Spring 2011)

Principals Survey

FLES Teachers Survey or focus group Regular Classroom Teachers Survey or focus group Program Documents about professional learning and training

Record review

C. Site Identification 7a. To what extent does the process used

to identify FLES sites and associated languages optimize articulation among school levels, student outcomes, and program costs?

7b. To what extent are site/language identification criteria used uniformly across schools?

Program manager Interview Year 1 (Spring 2009) (Years 2 and 3, only if staffing changes)

Qualitative analysis of data; Quantitative rating based on standard program quality rating scale used in FCPS program evaluations

Year 1 (Spring 2009)

Custer offices Survey Program Documents

about site selection

Record Review Cluster offices Survey or interview Program Documents

about site selection

(21)

APPENDIX E

FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITIONAL DETAILS ABOUT PROGRAM DEFINITION

(22)

E-1

Foreign Language in the Elementary School Additional Details about Program Definition Additional Evaluation Evidence

When the Department of Instructional Services (ISD) recommended to the School Board that the county adopt the Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES) model to support their Student Achievement Goal (SAG) 1.2 (“all Fairfax County Public Schools graduates communicate in at least two languages”), the recommendation was based on the belief that the FLES model was the most economical

and feasible way to start students on the path to communicative competence in a foreign language. The FLES model exposes all students in participating elementary schools to at least one hour of foreign language instruction per week, starting in grade 1 and continuing through the end of elementary school (typically grade 6, but grade 5 at some schools).

In contrast, while serving students in the same grades as FLES, the Partial Immersion (PI) program is an optional program where select participating students learn science and math content in the targeted foreign language. Attrition from the PI program tends to be high by the upper grades. Therefore, while the PI program offers more intensive language instruction, it reaches fewer students than FLES; and participating students do not necessarily continue to receive foreign language instruction through the end of elementary school. [Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) also has one additional program, Two-Way Immersion, offered only at the kindergarten level and, thus, not targeting the same population of students as FLES.]

Beginning foreign language instruction at the elementary level school is intended to set students on a path to develop communicative competence in another language by the end of high school, thus achieving SAG 1.2. More specifically, according to FLES assessment rubrics, by the end of grade 6, participating students are expected to have near native pronunciation and be able to reach the American Council for Teaching Foreign Language (ACTFL) Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners. These are defined within FCPS as being able to write and speak the target language at a high-novice level (3 on a 9-point rubric, with 9 representing highly advanced achievement in the target language).1 These expectations are supported by external research findings that students in high quality FLES programs can achieve language proficiency after three years of instruction leading to fluency in listening and speaking (Boyson, 1997). According to the program model described by FLES staff during the exploratory evaluation, FCPS students receiving FLES instruction are also expected to demonstrate increased interest in learning languages that motivates them to engage in continued foreign language study at the secondary level. The FLES program model is set up around achieving the expected levels of foreign language competence by providing students with at least twice-weekly lessons in the target language. Many of the elements identified by FLES program staff as necessary to a strong FLES lesson are intended to motivate students and encourage their engagement in the lesson. These instructional practices include using multiple modalities (aural, body-kinesthetic, oral, visual, written), active observation of the FLES lesson by the regular classroom teacher to model engagement in foreign language learning, and embedding the foreign language instruction within a content-based framework that provides students foreign language vocabulary that is immediately of use.

A stated goal of FLES is to prepare FCPS students to compete in the 21st century. Specifically, FLES is expected to improve cross-cultural understanding and prepare students for jobs in the coming decades. In 2006, a seminal report on workforce readiness was released that surveyed 431 human resource officials

1_{Adjustments in writing expectations are made for students learning non-Roman script language (i.e., Arabic,} Chinese, and Japanese). Students studying these languages are expected to achieve Novice-mid levels in writing, rather than Novice-high as is true for students studying Roman script languages. No adjustment is made to the expectations for speaking, so all languages have identical expectations.

(23)

E-2

about the skills and knowledge needed for the 21st century. Sixty-three percent of respondents rated the ability to speak a foreign language as the fastest growing need in the workplace over the next five years. In follow-up interviews, respondents noted that the ability to speak a foreign language is critical for understanding other cultures, working cooperatively in global teams, and competing in today’s global markets. Other organizations have also called for the need to develop a workforce that speaks foreign languages. The Workforce Investment Council (2008) lists language instruction as one of ten strategic opportunities because of the perceived growth in need of a workforce with proficiency in multiple languages. Thus, the FLES program’s intention to encourage continued study of foreign language in secondary school by students and foreign language competence by high school graduation is aligned with the business community needs reported in surveys and interviews.

In 2003, the federal government launched the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI) to identify and create training opportunities for high-need or strategic languages. The Secretaries of State, Education, and Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), partnered together and identified Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian languages and the Indic, Persian, and Turkish language families as critical languages to support and to achieve national security and foreign policy goals. The Department of Education developed a grant program called the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) to fund instruction in these languages. Currently, three of FCPS’ FLES schools (1 Arabic, 2 Chinese) are supported by funds from these federal grants; so obviously, some FCPS schools have aligned their language selection with publicly acknowledged government needs. However, looking more closely at NSLI recommendations, a minority of FCPS’ FLES schools have a target language identified by federal officials as critical (2 Arabic, 9 Chinese, 1 Japanese), while nearly two-thirds have a target language not considered critical by government officials (1 French, 1 Italian, 1 Latin, 17 Spanish).2 Currently, the critical languages not found at the elementary level are also not available at the secondary level in FCPS, undoubtedly limiting selection of any of these additional critical languages as the target language at a FLES school. Nonetheless, FCPS may wish to consider more directly targeting implementation of the identified critical languages (even if only limited to Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese) should FLES expand into additional schools in the future.

In a 2000 policy brief, Douglas Gilzow and Nancy Rhodes summarized nine characteristics of high-quality elementary foreign language programs. Comparing the FLES program to these nine criteria indicates a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. In line with three of the suggested criteria, FLES lesson delivery aims to give all students enjoyable, meaningful language instruction tied to content and based on a curriculum focused around the five national foreign language standards endorsed by ACTFL. FLES site-level activities also include collaboration between FLES and classroom teachers, matching another of the characteristics. At the program level, an additional criterion is matched as program staffs recruit and provide regular professional development to qualified teachers. While not specified in the program model, the program’s application process also includes checks to ensure articulation between elementary school through to middle and high school, meeting a sixth criterion of quality elementary foreign language instruction.

However, three of the quality characteristics prove more problematic for the FLES model. The first is a mismatch between the suggested intensity of instruction and the amount provided by FLES. While the FLES program model targets at least two lessons per week lasting 30 minutes each, no participating schools provide more FLES instruction than the minimal level. However, the criteria suggested, for a quality program, target 3 to 5 lessons per week for no less than 30-40 minutes. Thus, on a weekly basis, FLES students receive 1 hour of instruction, as compared to the recommended 1.5 to 3.3 hours. This results in an instructional gap of approximately 18 to 85 hours over the course of a single year or 100 to 500 hours over the course of six elementary grades. Thus, the FLES program provides much less exposure to the target language than ACTFL recommends. However, while making sense to have more

2_{The elementary school that is phasing out Latin and phasing in Chinese is counted here as implementing Chinese} as the target language.

(24)

E-3

frequent instruction to achieve good outcomes, it should be remembered that the recommended amount of instruction is not validated by research, so a lower dosage of instruction may be as successful.

The FLES program also does not meet the two interrelated criteria of clearly stated goals at each grade level and regular evaluation of student learning. The program supports two summative division-wide assessments, at the end of grades 3 and 6, with specific detailed benchmarks aligned with expectations for language proficiency set forth by ACTFL and documented via assessment rubrics. However, there are no common assessments systematically administered before these grades to assess student progress toward meeting expectations, nor is there any type of formal or systematic assessment used other than informal assessments teachers engage in during the course of lessons.

Component Analysis, Judgment, and Rating

Prerequisites

Broad rationale for program:

Overall purpose described in relation to division and/or national context Broad description of target population and need for the program Broad description of program activities:

Site level Central level

Broad description of meaningful and measurable outcomes Broad description of resources used to support program activities Standard Elements3

1. The rationale for the program is documented and includes: a. A research basis

b. Evidence of the program’s unique contribution to FCPS in terms of activities and/or targeted population c. A description of need for the program and fit within FCPS’ culture

2. Program activities are documented and include: a. Clear and explicit descriptions of site-level activities b. Clear and explicit descriptions of central-level activities

3. Program resources are clearly documented3_{and purposefully aligned with activities.}

4. Meaningful and measureable short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes are documented and include: a. Associated timelines

b. A clear relationship to program activities c. Standards and benchmarks

5. There is a common understanding of program rationale, activities, resources, and outcomes among stakeholders.

As with all program quality components, the first step in gauging program functioning so that OPE can assign a rating, is to determine whether the program has met all Prerequisites. For the Program Definition component, FLES documents and artifacts clearly indicate that the program has done this successfully. For example, documents and artifacts such as the FLES webpage on www.fcps.edu and PowerPoint presentations the program has posted on FCPS 24/7 document Program Definition information regarding the program’s rationale, purpose, resources, activities, and outcomes. In fact, in documenting this information and providing the level of detail that is found in these program-generated artifacts, the FLES program reaches into the Standard Elements.

3_{Documentation referred to in the Program Definition’s Standard Elements means program-generated documents} and artifacts that exist separate from documentation created by or collated by the Office of Program Evaluation (OPE) for the exploratory or comprehensive evaluation processes.

(25)

E-4

Moving on to the Standard Elements, Standard 1 is partially but not fully met. The FLES program is a content-embedded approach to foreign language instruction adopted by the division to contribute to the School Board goal that all students should be communicatively competent in two languages by graduation. Literature about best practices for elementary foreign language instruction identify nine criteria of effective FLES programs, six of which, as discussed more extensively above, have been embedded into the program model and documented through various program documents and artifacts. Literature suggests that FLES’ Program Definition would be improved by modifying activities (amount of instruction, evaluation of student learning) and Outcomes (articulation of program goals at every grade level). Furthermore, multiple documents tie the FLES program’s purpose to SAG 1.2 and specifically advocate for using the FLES program to offer all students an early foundation for achieving this goal. Program-generated documentation provides detailed expectations that meet Standard 2 for both site and central office activities. The documents used to describe the program clearly state the expectations for implementation at the schools including the duration, characteristics of instruction, and required conditions at the schools to support FLES. The documents also lay out the expectations for teacher’s participation in ongoing professional development led by central office staff. Central office staff engages in activities to ensure consistency and quality of the program, including overseeing instruction in the classroom and curriculum development. While central office activities are not as frequently documented as site-level activities, there is sufficient documentation to ensure clarity of roles and responsibilities. With respect to Standard 3, the program articulates required resources and aligns them to program activities. Budget-related documentation and PowerPoint presentations reflect that in the first year of FLES implementation at a school, teachers are hired at a .5 position to provide instruction in first (and frequently second grades). Classroom instructional time is purposefully minimized so teachers have time to develop lessons for the grade levels they are teaching and share them with their FLES teacher colleagues. It is anticipated that teachers will not have sufficient time to plan lessons as they begin to support more grades and up to 450 students. The program also aligns its resources to support consistent and quality instruction through monthly professional development meetings, classroom observations and curriculum development. Other program files link expenditures to professional development that supports strong FLES instruction by teachers.

For Standard 4, the program has articulated short, intermediate and long-term outcomes, but has not consistently developed standards and benchmarks for these outcomes. For example, the program has articulated short-term goals of FLES instruction in the first month of instruction including fearlessness of language, increased self-esteem and cultural awareness, but has not established standards or benchmarks for these outcomes. The program has been more successful in establishing standards and setting expectations for intermediate and long-term goals to develop functional proficiency in a world language. They have set benchmarks for student performance in the target language in grade 3 and grade 6 based on national standards from ACTFL and are piloting student performance assessments on these standards. The program would also benefit by setting benchmarks for performance in the grades that do not have assessments to ensure that students are making sufficient progress to meet the benchmark. Although improving student achievement in the core content is a stated goal of the program, it does set expectations or monitor student performance in this area.

Lastly, on Standard 5, the FLES program has been successful in developing a surface understanding of the program activities and outcomes among principals and most classroom teachers; however, the rationale linking activities to outcomes was not as clearly understood. Principals and classroom teachers consistently articulated the goals of the program and some of the activities that support reaching the goals, but some schools supported conditions that violated the program model. For example, during SY 2008-09, some schools did not schedule joint teacher planning time to support site-level collaboration between FLES and classroom teachers, or few schools provided a separate classroom for FLES, rather than having FLES teachers come to the students’ regular classrooms. The program would benefit from clearer

(26)

E-5

articulation of not just the activities themselves, but harkening back to Standard 1, the rationale behind the activities and how adherence to the model is necessary to achieve intended student outcomes.

Evaluation Questions and Responses

To what extent is the FLES programmatic approach designed to contribute at the elementary level to SAG 1.2? (Evaluation Question 1a)

Summarizing the response to this evaluation question, the FLES program is the only program currently being implemented in the division that could contribute at the elementary level to all FCPS students meeting SAG 1.2. The FLES program’s overall purpose and instructional approach target this goal. The FLES program, as implemented in FCPS, is organized to meet six of the criteria: (1) engaging instruction; (2) curriculum based on the five ACTFL standards (Communities, Communication, Cultures, Connections to other subjects, and Comparisons with other languages and cultures); (3) inclusion of all students; (4) communication and coordination between FLES and classroom teachers; (5) native or near native speakers of the language who receive ongoing professional development; and (6) articulation through middle and high schools. The program needs to improve its defining of program goals for each grade level so that all grades are equally articulated, and to develop a regular process for assessing student learning in some way at all grade levels. While the preceding six characteristics of a quality elementary foreign language program are purposely reflected by the FLES model, the program currently does not meet three important characteristics. Should research validate the critical need for more instructional time, the small amount of FLES instructional time (35-40 hours per year) could prove a serious impediment to achieving the program’s intended support for SAG 1.2. The FLES program also demonstrates unevenness at some grade levels in defining clearly stated instructional goals and conducting regular assessments of student learning to monitor whether or not such goals are being achieved.

To what extent is the FLES program designed to meet the needs of external forces (i.e., business community, government, etc.)? (Evaluation Question 1b)

Overall, the FLES program’s intention to encourage students to continue studying foreign language in secondary school and communicative competence in a second language by high school graduation is aligned with business and government needs. However, nearly two-thirds of FLES schools have a target language not considered critical by government officials (1 French, 1 Italian, 1 Latin, 17 Spanish4), highlighting that the alignment of the program with the specific needs of external forces has room for improvement.

4_{The elementary school that is phasing out Latin and phasing in Chinese is counted here as implementing Chinese} as the target language.

(27)

E-6 References

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, (1998). ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Alexandria, VA.

Boyson, B. (1997). Listening and speaking assessment of third grade students in the Georgia elementary school foreign languages model program. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Gilzow, D. F., & Rhodes, N. (2000). Establishing high-quality foreign language programs in elementary schools: Perspectives on policy and practice. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED461288)

Workforce Investment Council. (2008). Washington, D.C.’ strategic plan for workforce development. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from http://dcchamber.org/clientuploads/ WIC_StrategicPlan.pdf

(28)

APPENDIX F

FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITIONAL DETAILS ABOUT FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION

(29)

F-1

Foreign Language in the Elementary School Additional Details about Fidelity of Implementation Additional Evaluation Evidence

The Office of Program Evaluation (OPE) used multiple sources to gather evidence about site-level implementation of the program model. These sources included interviews with central office program staff; observations in Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES) classrooms; surveys of FLES teachers, classroom teachers, and principals; and record reviews of program documents and artifacts, including the FLES 24/7 Blackboard site.

As described in the Year One Interim Evaluation Report SY 2008-09, the focus of the evidence gathered was on the four specific site-level activities expected by the FLES program model, as described by program staff:

1. Delivering FLES lessons;

2. Contributing to the FLES Blackboard community; 3. Collaborating; and

4. Participating in program-specific professional development.

All four activities are the responsibility of the FLES teacher(s); however, in some cases, the teachers must rely on the cooperation of others. For example, the FLES teacher is tasked with collaborating with classroom teachers, but this task is facilitated when classroom teachers are open to the collaborative process or when the school provides for joint planning time between the FLES and regular classroom teachers. Similarly, while lesson delivery is to be done within parameters such as two 30-minute lessons per week for each class, school administrators must find a way to fit the lessons into the schools’ master schedules.

Delivering FLES Lessons FLES Lesson Characteristics

Lesson delivery is the centerpiece of FLES implementation activities as it is the element that directly provides the foreign language instruction to students. FLES program staff provided a list of the primary characteristics of effective FLES lesson delivery, which included:

Two lessons per week for 30 minutes each;

Inclusion of all Special Education students in the regular classroom (Note: self-contained Special Education students may or may not receive FLES at school’s discretion.);

Multimodal delivery of lessons (oral, written, visual [pictures and manipulatives], songs, kinesthetic; expect to cover all five within a week);

Instruction occurs in target language most or all of the time; FLES instruction occurs in the students’ regular classrooms;

Both the FLES and regular classroom teacher remain in the classroom for FLES lessons; Regular classroom teacher actively observes (watches and listens to) FLES lessons; and Students respond orally or in writing to target language.

There were some differences in the percent of grades 1 and 2 classrooms’ implementation fidelity on expected lesson characteristics. For example, while all FLES teachers used at least three modalities at both grades, unsurprisingly, writing was a more common practice in grade 2 (89%) than grade 1 (81%).

(30)

F-2

This contrasted with the more frequent use of aural and kinesthetic instruction at grade 1 (aural: 87%; kinesthetic: 87%) than grade 2 (aural: 75%; kinesthetic: 82%). Perhaps more importantly, the level of adherence demonstrated in grade 1 FLES lessons to having both the regular classroom teacher and FLES teacher in the room during the lesson (90%) and having the regular classroom teacher actively observe the lesson (55%), both showed declines by grade 2 (75% and 46%, respectively), indicating declining trend of involvement in FLES, by the regular classroom teachers, as students get older. Similarly, the inclusion of all students in FLES lessons showed a marked decline between grade 1 (90%) and grade 2 (75%), perhaps indicating declining commitment by schools to include all students as competing demands interfere in the later grades.

Table F-1

Percent of FLES Lessons Adhering to Expected Characteristics (n=59 observations)

Lesson Characteristic Grade 1 Grade 2 Total

30-minute lesson _84%26 _86%24 _86%51 Regular classroom and FLES

teacher in room 90% 28 75% 21 83% 49 All students in room _90%28 _75%21 _83%49 Regular classroom teacher actively

observes 17 55% 13 46% 30 51% Multiple modalities (oral plus at least

2 additional modalities) 100% 31 100% 28 100% 59 - Oral _100%31 _100%28 _100%59 - Written _81%25 _89%25 _85%50 - Visual _97%30 _96%27 _97%57 - Aural _87%27 _75%21 _81%48 - Kinesthetic _87%27 _82%23 _85%50 Instruction in target language _94%29 _96%27 _95%56 Students respond to target language _97%30 _100%28 _98%58 Instruction in regular classroom _94%29 _93%26 _93%55

Table F-1 examines how implementation differed by FLES language. Across all languages, use of multiple modalities for instruction was high. FLES teachers of the Chinese language were less likely to use written language in instruction than teachers of other languages, and Arabic teachers relied less on aural language than other teachers. All teachers used oral language, and most used visuals and kinesthetic approaches in their teaching.

As with the overall sample of all languages, the most frequently implemented lesson characteristic was multiple modalities. Also, mirroring the overall results, the most challenging lesson characteristic to implement for each target language was active observation by the classroom teachers. One Arabic classroom had a lower percent of teachers remaining in the room because one of the two schools teaching