Foreign/Heritage Language Education in Public K-12 Schools

Currently, heritage language instruction at the K-12 level is provided either in public schools in the form of foreign language or bilingual education, or in community-based weekend schools. Cummins (2005) notes that in all of these settings, the teaching of heritage languages is marginalized with respect to funding provisions, number of languages involved, and number of students who participate. According to a Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) survey of foreign language teaching in U.S. K-12 schools (Rhodes & Pufahl, 2009), only a handful of languages are taught in foreign language classes or in bilingual/ dual language programs (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2).

As can be seen in Figures 4.1 and 4.2, Spanish is by far the most popular foreign language of choice in the U.S. both at the elementary and secondary levels. Spanish is also the language most widely spoken natively by ELs in U.S. schools—more than 75% of all ELs in American public schools are from Spanish-speaking backgrounds. However, most of the languages offered by formal K-12 school systems are taught as foreign languages—only a small percentage of the programs cater specifically to heritage populations. For instance, while 88% of the elementary schools offering foreign language programs in 2008 taught Spanish, only 7% had “Spanish for Spanish Speakers” (SpSpSpkrs) classes (Figure 4.1). The same pattern can be seen at the secondary school level—while 93% of the secondary schools offering foreign language programs in 2008 taught Spanish, only 8% had “Spanish for Spanish Speakers” (SpSpSpkrs) classes (Figure 4.2).

Within the mainstream classroom, language minority students’ knowledge of their native languages has often been viewed as a hindrance to learning English and other academic content subjects. In many school districts in the U.S. teachers actively discourage students from speaking their native languages in the classroom (see also Chapter 7). As a result, many heritage speakers abandon their native languages during their formative years, only to be given a less-than-optimal chance to (re)learn it later either in secondary school or in college as a “foreign” language. Obviously, this is not a good educational practice. It would be more effective if language minority students are supported to maintain their heritage languages in the first place, than to lose it and try to learn it again later.

On the whole, foreign language teaching is not a priority in American preK-12 education. In a study of language teaching practices and policies in 19 countries, Christian, Pufahl, & Rhodes (2004/2005) found that foreign language instruction generally starts much earlier in other countries. Most of the 19 countries in the survey begin compulsory language instruction for the majority of students in the elementary grades, whereas schools in the U.S. typically do not offer foreign language classes until middle school or high school. The authors argue that what the U.S. needs is a national commitment to elementary school language teaching for all children. Given the vast linguistic diversity among the K-12 student population in the U.S., they contend that heritage language instruction should be a significant part of this commitment.

It is an unfortunate fact that foreign language education in the U.S. starts too late for most students. But recent evidence suggests that even the existing

FIGURE 4.1 Languages Offered by Elementary Schools with Foreign Language Programs, 1997, 2008 * American Sign Language

Source: Rhodes & Pufahl, 2009. Reproduced by permission of Center for Applied Linguistics

FIGURE 4.2 Languages Offered by Secondary Schools with Foreign Language Programs, 1997, 2008 * American Sign Language

Source: Rhodes & Pufahl, 2009. Reproduced by permission of Center for Applied Linguistics language programs are threatened by an educational policy that places little emphasis on the value of knowing other languages. In the CAL survey of foreign language teaching in K-12 schools in the U.S., Rhodes & Pufahl (2009) found that the percentage of elementary and middle schools offering foreign language instruction decreased significantly from 1997 to 2008: from 31% to 25% of all elementary schools (see Figure 4.3) and from 75% to 58% of all middle schools (see Figure 4.4). The decline at the elementary level occurred mainly in public elementary schools; the percentage of private elementary schools teaching languages remained about the same.

Rhodes & Pufahl (2009) found that about a third of public elementary and secondary schools with language programs were affected by the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation (Public Law 107-110). Comments from survey respondents suggested that NCLB’s focus on reading and math (the two tested subjects) had drawn resources away from foreign languages which are not included in the law’s testing program (Rhodes & Pufahl, 2009). NCLB requires annual testing of all students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8. These tests are “high-stakes” because schools, administrators, teachers, and students who fail to make the grade face some serious consequences.

FIGURE 4.3 Elementary Schools Teaching Foreign Languages (by School Type), 1987, 1997, 2008

Source: Rhodes & Pufahl, 2009. Reproduced by permission of Center for Applied Linguistics

FIGURE 4.4 Secondary Schools Teaching Foreign Languages (by School Level), 1987, 1997, 2008

Source: Rhodes & Pufahl, 2009. Reproduced by permission of Center for Applied Linguistics

With an exclusive focus on English, NCLB requires schools to move language minority students into mainstream English-only classrooms as quickly as possible. Teachers and schools are under immense pressures to raise the test scores of these students and are increasingly focusing their instruction to the content covered by the tests, instead of providing the kind of instruction that addresses the full range of linguistic and educational needs of ELs (Meier & Wood, 2004; Menken, 2008). Curriculum and instruction, particularly in low-performing schools with high percentages of minority student populations, are increasingly driven by materials that are covered by the tests while non-tested subjects such as social studies, foreign languages, and music are neglected.

Foreign language teaching in public schools is not intensive enough to produce advanced bilingualism. Only a small percentage of foreign language programs in public elementary schools, where they exist, go beyond the introductory level. Rhodes & Pufahl (2009) found that of the 15% of all public elementary schools that offered any foreign language programs at all in 2008, 47% offered the exploratory model, which provides introductory exposure to the language. Language focus programs, which emphasize listening, speaking, reading, writing, and culture, were offered at 39% of public elementary schools with language programs. These programs may or may not expect students to gain proficiency in the language, depending on the goals of the particular program. Only 14% of public elementary language programs followed an immersion model, which provides students the opportunity to attain high levels of proficiency in the target language. Thus, foreign language teaching in K-12 schools lacks both breadth (in terms of the number of languages offered) and depth (in terms of opportunities to develop advanced proficiencies).