report of the world languages/ …...work of the world languages/internationalization working group...

Instructional Services Department

REPORT OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES/

INTERNATIONALIZATION WORKING GROUP

July 14, 2014

“Global awareness is a new essential in the global economy. Americans need a secure understanding of global issues that affect them as citizens and workers. They need to be able to learn from and work collaboratively with people from a range of diverse cultures and lifestyles. They need to be able to communicate in languages other than English.”

Ken Kay, CEO EdLeader 21

World Languages/Internationalization Report

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................................1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2

Background ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Section 1: World Languages Elementary Models ................................................................................6

Language Selection Process .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Component 1A: Opt-In Programs ........................................................................................................9

Recommendation A ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Recommendation B ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Recommendation C ................................................................................................................................................... 13

Component 1B: School-wide Programs ............................................................................................. 15

Recommendation D .................................................................................................................................................... 15 Recommendation E .................................................................................................................................................... 18 Researched and Not Recommended: Offer FLES model only at upper grade levels ................................................. 19 Researched and Not Recommended: Technology Programs .................................................................................... 21 Section 1: World Languages Elementary Models Recommendations Summary ....................................................... 23 World Languages Elementary Models Recommendations Cost Chart ....................................................................... 24

Section 2: K-12 Vertical Articulation ................................................................................................. 25

Middle School World Languages Program .................................................................................................................. 25 High School World Languages Program ...................................................................................................................... 25 Recommendation F..................................................................................................................................................... 26 Recommendation G .................................................................................................................................................... 28 Recommendation H .................................................................................................................................................... 30 Recommendation I .................................................................................................................................................... 32 Recommendation J .................................................................................................................................................... 34 Pilot: Language through Content in Middle Schools ................................................................................................. 36 Enhancement: Supplemental Language Laboratory System ...................................................................................... 37 Section 2: K-12 Vertical Articulation Recommendations Summary........................................................................... 38 K-12 Vertical Articulation Recommendations Cost Chart ........................................................................................... 39

Section 3: Internationalization ......................................................................................................... 40

Recommendation K ................................................................................................................................................... 40 Recommendation L .................................................................................................................................................... 43 Recommendation M ................................................................................................................................................... 45 Recommendation N .................................................................................................................................................... 47 Section 3: Internationalization Recommendations Summary ................................................................................... 50 Internationalization Recommendations Cost Chart ................................................................................................... 51

Appendix A: World Languages/Internationalization Working Group .................................................. 52

Appendix B: FCPS Immersion Data .................................................................................................... 54

Appendix C: Reference List .............................................................................................................. 78

World Languages/Internationalization Report 1

Introduction Preparing our students to become successful global citizens is essential in the global economy and society of today and into the future. Ken Kay, CEO of EdLeader21, states:

“Global awareness is a new essential in the global economy. Americans need a secure understanding of global issues that affect them as citizens and workers. They need to be able to learn from and work collaboratively with people from a range of diverse cultures and lifestyles. They need to be able to communicate in languages other than English.”

21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn, 2010

The development of 21st century skills is an integral component of preparing students to become successful global citizens, who interact and compete with contemporaries not only from Fairfax and the U.S.A., but also with those from around the world. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills Framework for 21st Century Learning includes “global awareness,” “communication and collaboration,” and “world languages” skills among those necessary to prepare students for success in the 21st century. At the national level, a variety of leaders and organizations are advocating for the development of students’ 21st century skills, including proficiency in more than one language and global awareness. The Large Countrywide and Suburban District Consortium, comprised of many of the country’s largest and most diverse school districts, has proposed related recommendations in its recent publication, 21st Century Education Accountability: Recommendations for a New Federal Framework. (Large Countywide and Suburban District Consortium, 2014). Their recommendations state that federal law should establish clear, high, and common college- and career-ready expectations for all students,” including “ability and fluency in more than one language.” U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan has recently stated:

“Today, a world-class education means learning to speak, read and write languages in addition to English. In an interconnected, interdependent global economy, we must prepare our children for a future in which their social and economic success will depend on their ability to understand diverse perspectives and communicate with people from other cultures and language groups. This isn’t a matter of getting ahead – it’s a matter of catching up. It is common for students in other countries to be required to study two to three languages in addition to their own” (Duncan & Gil, 2014).

As Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) develops its “Portrait of a Graduate” (POG), 21st century skills are integrated throughout the desired student outcomes. One of the five major themes of the FCPS Portrait of a Graduate is that of becoming a “Global Citizen.” Some of the characteristics delineated in becoming a Global Citizen include “communicating effectively in multiple languages to make meaningful connections,” and “acknowledging and understanding diverse perspectives and cultures in the consideration of issues that impact our local area, nation and the world.” Additionally, the FCPS Student Achievement Goals (SAG) 1.2 Students will communicate in at least two languages and 1.4, Students will


http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/Consortium%20-%20%20Recommendations%20for%20a%20New%20Federal%20Accountability%20Framework%20February%202014.pdf

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/Consortium%20-%20%20Recommendations%20for%20a%20New%20Federal%20Accountability%20Framework%20February%202014.pdf

http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20140219/english-learners-an-asset-for-global-multilingual-future-arne-duncan-and-libia-gil

http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20140219/english-learners-an-asset-for-global-multilingual-future-arne-duncan-and-libia-gil

understand the interrelationship and interdependence of the countries and culture of the world, continue as ongoing important outcomes for FCPS students. A desired outcome of both the FCPS Portrait of a Graduate and Student Achievement Goal 1.2 is that students will learn to become communicatively competent in at least two languages by the time they graduate. Communicative competence means being able to use the language effectively to communicate with others. The national World Languages organization, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), has conducted a comprehensive national study on years of study necessary to attain communicative competence. The chart that follows summarizes that research.

ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners:

Language Learner Performance Outcomes

The ACTFL language proficiency scale has three major levels, novice, intermediate, and advanced, and communicative competence is defined as Intermediate High and above. As summarized in the chart, the only sequence of language study that reaches the level of communicative competence is one that begins in kindergarten (or first grade) and continues through high school. The earlier students start to learn a language, the better they do in language acquisition. Early language learning also develops cognitive flexibility which is an executive functioning skill which enhances academic achievement. Most importantly, emerging brain research also demonstrates that children who learn a second language beginning in early childhood demonstrate cognitive advantages over those who do not. In FCPS, it is important for all students to have access to developing those cognitive advantages.

Background

At a School Board Forum meeting on October 10, 2013, the School Board requested that:

“staff establish a working group by November 2013 to develop recommendations to improve world language delivery and engage with business partners and the diplomatic community,”

and to report back to the Board with recommendations by June or July 2014. This report is a culmination of those efforts. To implement this School Board charge, the following Goal, Purpose and Scope, and Process, were developed.


Goal: Create a division-wide multi-year plan to develop internationally minded students ready to succeed in an increasingly global society. A major component of this plan will be to provide every FCPS student the opportunity to learn a world language through a quality, cost-effective K-12 articulated program based on current research and best practices in language education. Additionally, the plan will include methods for expanding students’ international learning experiences, both virtually and through international study travel programs and international service learning opportunities.

Purpose and Scope:

• Review current research and evaluation reports of existing programs to determine and recommend the most effective and cost-efficient models of elementary world languages offerings and develop a phase-in plan at the division level.

• Develop and recommend a strategic K-12 world languages plan that utilizes the most current

technologies and best practices in the field, and is feasible and cost effective to phase in during the next five years.

• Develop and recommend procedures that will ensure equitable and strategic placement of

programs and languages, valuing and building upon the home language skills students already have.

• Develop and recommend a plan for K-12 world languages instruction that will ensure K-12

vertical articulation of the languages offered.

• Develop and recommend a plan to expand international study travel programs and international service learning opportunities for students, as well as virtual experiences.

• Delineate current system partnerships with other countries and develop recommendations to

increase engagement with the Washington-area diplomatic and international business communities.

Process: The World Languages/Internationalization Working Group, including 36 members from the community, schools, and central office (World Languages/Internationalization Working Group Membership List) began meeting in November 2013. The Working Group met every two weeks from November 2013 through May 2014. During this time current FCPS World Languages models and evaluation reports were reviewed, including strengths and challenges of each model. To address the challenges, other national and international models were researched and discussed, including models utilizing emerging technologies. From February through May 2014, the group worked in three subcommittees:


• World Languages Elementary Models Subcommittee: focused on developing options for offering cost-effective, quality, evidence-based world language programs to all elementary students.

• World Languages K-12 Vertical Articulation Subcommittee: building upon the vision of all elementary students having had access to world language offerings when rising to the secondary level, the subcommittee focused on ways to provide appropriate and feasible world language offerings for students in grades 7-12 that promote and support vertical articulation of language study from grades kindergarten through twelve.

• Internationalization Subcommittee: focused on ways in which to enhance international offerings for students, both virtually and in person, and methods for developing and strengthening connections with Washington-area diplomatic and international business communities.

The subcommittees met separately to develop options, and then met together regularly with the entire working group to discuss, vet and come to consensus on and coordinate recommendations to be included in the School Board report. This report represents the results of the research and collaborative work of the World Languages/Internationalization Working Group to develop options for the School Board to provide world languages offerings in an equitable manner to all students and to prepare students to become successful global citizens through enhanced international experiences. The report is divided into three sections, in alignment with the World Languages Internationalization Working Group subcommittees:

• Section 1: World Languages Elementary Models

• Section 2: World Languages K-12 Vertical Articulation

• Section 3: Internationalization Each recommendation is designated with a letter (A through N) in the report, so that the School Board may consider implementing individual recommendations or a combination of recommendations to accomplish FCPS goals. Each recommendation is described with considerations for implementation, a five-year implementation overview, and cost chart. A summary of the recommendations and costs are provided at the end of each section. Some options were researched and developed, but are not recommended as viable at this time for reasons provided in the report. Additionally, some options are recommended to be piloted prior to consideration for future implementation.


Section 1: World Languages Elementary Models As Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) develops its Portrait of a Graduate, a fundamental question emerges regarding the outcome of students “communicating effectively in multiple languages to make meaningful connections.” Should World Languages instruction be offered as an “opt-in” model or “school-wide” model for all elementary students in FCPS so that this outcome can be achieved by the time students graduate? Currently, in schools where Immersion programs are offered, it is an “opt-in” model, and students apply to “opt in” to the program. At schools where Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES) program is offered, all students in grades 1-6 participate in the school-wide program. Therefore, currently, FCPS offers a combination of both opt-in and school-wide elementary World Languages models. To facilitate the School Board’s consideration of this fundamental question, the World Languages/Internationalization Working Group has developed a variety of recommendations for both opt-in and school-wide models at the elementary level, and has organized Section 1: World Languages Elementary Models, into two components: Component 1A: Opt-In Programs, and Component 1B: School-Wide Programs, as outlined on the chart on page 8. The World Languages/Internationalization Working Group examined existing models internal to FCPS, as well as external national and international models of providing world languages instruction at the elementary level, including models utilizing emerging technologies. The World Languages/Internationalization Working Group identified strengths, challenges and costs of each model. At the elementary level, in addition to strengths of existing models, three major areas emerged as areas of challenge:

• Access • Cost • Scheduling

In each section of the report, existing models will be briefly described, including current strengths and challenges. To mitigate the challenges, a variety of recommendations will be offered, including implementation considerations and costs of each recommendation.

Language Selection Process For each of the options, it is recommended that the FCPS language selection process continue as it is currently being implemented. Schools opening a new world languages program may propose up to three languages in which they are interested (from which one is selected) based on a variety of factors, including parent and community input, middle and high school support, and home languages of students. Currently, the top five home languages of FCPS students are Spanish, Korean, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Chinese. FCPS currently offers World Languages programs in Spanish, Korean, Arabic, and Chinese and will begin to offer courses in Vietnamese in the fall of 2015.


Elementary school administrators must meet with and discuss proposed languages with middle and high school administrators in their pyramid, and reach consensus on languages that can be supported through K-12 vertical articulation. Final language selection is determined by the FCPS Leadership Team in order to maintain language variety and balance throughout the division.


Component 1A: Opt-In Programs

Immersion Programs: Immersion programs are currently offered at 16 elementary schools. There are three types of Immersion programs offered in FCPS:

• School-Based Two-Way Immersion (TWI) Program - Distinguishing features of this program model are that half of the students enrolled are speakers of the target language being studied, and half are native English speakers, with all students living within the school’s boundaries. Schools eligible for this program model need to have a substantial percentage of their student population with a home language that is the target language of the program. Half the school day is provided in the target language and the other half is provided in English. This model began in FCPS in 2012.

• Two-Way Immersion Program – This model is very similar to the school-based Two-Way Immersion Program model, however, students residing anywhere in Fairfax are eligible to apply for these county-wide lottery programs, and it is therefore not required for students to live within the boundaries of the program school. This model began in FCPS in 2002.

• World Languages (Partial) Immersion Program – This model, formerly called the Partial Immersion program, also offers one-half day provided in the target language, and the other half of the day in English. The difference between this model and the Two-Way Immersion model is that there is not a requirement of 50% of the students enrolled being speakers of the target language. Most of the students currently enrolled in World Language Immersion programs are native English speakers. These programs are currently lottery-based, and students residing anywhere in Fairfax can apply for these programs. This model began in FCPS in 1989.

Strengths and challenges of each of these programs, as well as recommendations for expansion follow.

Recommendation A: Expand School-Based Two-Way Immersion Programs Begun in 2012, there are currently five school-based Two-Way Immersion programs:

• Braddock ES (Spanish) • Colin Powell ES (Korean) • Groveton ES (Spanish) • Herndon ES (Spanish) • Washington Mill ES (Spanish)

Two additional programs are scheduled to begin in 2014-15 at Hutchison ES (Spanish) and Woodley Hills ES (Spanish).


Strengths: • Access: All students in the program school are eligible to participate. • Cost: Cost neutral staffing model – Program staff is included as part of the general staffing

allocation. No additional staff is needed to offset natural attrition at higher grade levels, as native speakers of target language moving into the school community in upper grade levels can enroll in the Immersion Program to mitigate effects of attrition.

• Scheduling: All content areas are offered as in non-Immersion schools, with minimal scheduling challenges.

• Is a research-based model proven to be highly effective in enhancing student achievement for both native English speakers and limited English proficient (LEP) students (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000).

• Develops cognitive flexibility (executive functioning skill) to help close the gap for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Izadi, 2014).

• Is the most effective program model for developing English skills of LEP students (Collier & Thomas, 2004).

• Evidence-based FCPS results on Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) assessments demonstrate that students in Immersion programs out-perform students not enrolled in Immersion programs (FCPS Immersion Program data).

• The FCPS Two-Way Immersion Program Final Evaluation (2008) report recommended expansion of the program to assist in closing the achievement gap with limited English proficient (LEP) students (Two-Way Immersion Program Final Evaluation).

Challenges: • Access: Immersion programs are currently “opt in” programs, and therefore all students in a

school are not enrolled in the program. Recommendation E described later in this report will address this challenge.

Considerations for Implementation: Schools that have 35% or more of their student population with a home language that is the target language of the program are eligible for this program model. There are five schools implementing this model. Two schools will open new school-based TWI programs in 2014-15. Currently, there are an additional 21 schools that have a student population of 35% or more with the same home language (Spanish) that are eligible to begin a school-based TWI program and do not already have an elementary world languages program.

Recommendation A: Expand School-Based Two-Way Immersion programs to elementary schools with eligible populations.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/early-childhood/bilingualism-can-help-close-learning-gaps-for-immigrant-students-20140430

http://fcpsnet.fcps.edu/accountability/off_prog_eval/200809_executive_summary/TWI_Final_Exec_Rpt.pdf%23xml=http://search.fcps.edu/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search_intra/xml.txt?query=Two+Way+Immersion+Evaluation+Report&pr=fcpsnet1&prox=sentence&rorder=750&rprox=750&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&sufs=1&order=r&cq=&id=5220e3859

Implementation Plan: It is recommended that new school-based TWI programs be phased in during the next five years in the following manner:

2014/15 – 2015/16 Schools with 50% or more students with the same home language 2016/17 – 2017/18 Schools with 40% or more students with the same home language 2018-19 Schools with 35% or more students with the same home language

Cost for Recommendation A: Number of Sites

Projected Number of Students

School-Based Positions1

Non-School Based Positions2

Totals Salary and Benefits

Professional Development and Materials

Total Annual Cost for Full Implementation

21 5,250 0 0.5 FTE $42,893 $5,000 One-Time + $5,000 Recurring per school

$147,893

1 One school-based 194-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $76,340 2 One non-school-based 218-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $85,785

Recommendation B: Offer World Languages (Partial) Immersion Programs in Critical Languages Begun in 1989, World Languages Immersion programs (formerly called Partial Immersion) are currently offered at eight schools in the following languages:

• Kent Gardens ES – French • Herndon ES – French • Orange Hunt ES – German • Fox Mill ES – Japanese • Great Falls ES – Japanese • Fort Hunt ES – Spanish • Laurel Ridge ES – Spanish • Ravensworth ES – Spanish

Strengths: • Access: Students throughout FCPS may apply for these lottery-based programs. • Scheduling: All content areas are offered as in a non-Immersion program with minimal

scheduling challenges. • The World Languages Immersion program provides offerings in languages in addition to those

able to be offered through the Two-Way Immersion program.


• Develops cognitive flexibility (executive functioning skill) (Abbott, Caccavale, & Stewart, 2007) to help close the gap for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Izadi, 2014).

• Evidence-based FCPS results on Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) assessments demonstrate that students in Immersion programs out-perform students not enrolled in Immersion Programs (FCPS Immersion Program data).

Challenges: • Cost: Not currently a cost neutral staffing model, as the school-based TWI model is. With this

model, as natural attrition occurs at the upper grade levels as students move out of FCPS, additional staffing is provided to offset non-immersion class size growth.

• Immersion programs are currently “opt in” programs, and therefore all students in a school are not enrolled in the program. Recommendation E described later in this report will address this challenge.

• This model does not yet offer some of the languages deemed as “critical” for the U.S. economy (The Languages of Business, 2011) and defense, (e.g. Chinese, etc.) (Department of State, 2009).

Considerations for Implementation: To reduce costs due to attrition at the upper grade levels, the following “grouping” model is recommended to resemble a Two-Way Immersion model. Identify school(s) (one per region) with the largest population of native speakers of the target language as the program school. Offer the program to all students residing in Fairfax, through a lottery system, however, prioritize those students who speak the target language residing within a zone of proximity to the program school. If enrollment is not filled with students from within the zone of proximity, the remaining enrollment slots may be filled through the remainder of applications from the lottery system. Use this system to attain a 50/50 balance of target language and native English-speaking students. As natural attrition occurs at the upper grades, continue enrollment of native target language speakers from schools in the zone of proximity to offset attrition and maintain a cost neutral staffing model. It is also recommended that all World Languages Immersion programs be expanded to include kindergarten. Expanding teacher recruitment efforts to hire qualified teachers of identified critical languages will be essential to the success of this recommendation.

Recommendation B: Offer World Languages Immersion programs in critical languages (e.g. Chinese).


http://www.actfl.org/advocacy/discover-languages/for-parents/cognitive


http://liberalarts.iupui.edu/wlac/uploads/docs/Bloomberg_Rankings_Business_languages.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09955.pdf

Implementation Plan: It is recommended that World Languages Immersion programs in critical languages be phased in during the next five years in the following manner:

2014-15 Develop plan for identifying languages and schools and recruit Immersion teachers 2015-16 Open one new World Languages Immersion school (one per Region) 2016-17 Open one additional World Languages Immersion schools (one per Region) 2017-18 Open one additional World Languages Immersion schools (one per Region) 2018-19 Open two additional World Languages Immersion schools (one per Region)

Cost for Recommendation B: Number of Sites


School-Based Positions

Non-School Based Positions




5 1,250 0 0 0 $5,000 One-Time + $5,000 Recurring per school

$25,000

Recommendation C: Provide World Languages Immersion for all Schools Without an Immersion Program Currently 16 schools offer Immersion programs. Recommendation A proposes that an additional 21 schools be offered the opportunity to begin a school-based Two-Way Immersion Program. Recommendation B offers critical language World Languages Immersion Programs at an additional 5 schools. Another option investigated was that of offering school-based World Languages Immersion programs at all additional schools that do not already have an Immersion programs or would not be eligible for an Immersion program through Recommendation A or B (97 schools).

Strengths:

• Access: Students at every school would have access to a world languages program at their base school.

• Scheduling: All content areas are offered as in a non-Immersion program, with minimal scheduling challenges.

• Develops cognitive flexibility (executive functioning skill) (Abbott, Caccavale, & Stewart, 2007) to help close the gap for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Izadi, 2014).

• Evidence-based FCPS results on Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) assessments demonstrate that students in Immersion programs out-perform students not enrolled in Immersion programs (FCPS Immersion Program data).


http://www.actfl.org/advocacy/discover-languages/for-parents/cognitive


Challenges: • Access: Although the Immersion program would be offered to all students in each school, it

would remain an “opt-in” program, and therefore not every student would be required to receive world languages instruction.

• Cost: An average cost of 1.69 (FTEs) teachers ($125,640 per site) would be required to offset attrition at the upper grades for each school.

• Recruiting sufficient World Languages Immersion teachers with elementary certification is very challenging.

Considerations for Implementation: Although there are some areas, such as Utah, (Utah Dual Language Immersion) that are implementing a plan to implement Immersion programs in all schools, there are several major challenges with this model. First, there would need to be community support for such a model, which could be facilitated with community outreach and education on the benefits of language learning. Second, as it is an “opt in” model, all students would have access to, but not all students would participate in the Immersion program. Third, recruiting sufficient World Languages teachers with elementary certification is a major challenge. Another major challenge is attrition. In the upper grade levels, as students move out of FCPS, new students moving into the school’s boundaries cannot easily enter the Immersion program at the upper grade levels, unless they already have adequate language experience in the target language. As a result, as Immersion classes at the upper grade levels reduce in size, the non-immersion classes expand. Additional staffing is provided at the upper grade levels for non-immersion classes to mitigate the effects of attrition. The average amount of staffing currently provided to each World Language Immersion (non-school based) program to mitigate attrition is 1.69 FTEs annually.

Implementation Plan: This option would be extremely difficult to phase in over a five year period, therefore a potential ten-year plan is provided below:

2014-15 Develop community communication plan and plan for implementation and recruitment of teachers

2015-16 Open 10 new World Languages Immersion programs 2016-17 Open 10 new World Languages Immersion programs 2017-18 Open 10 new World Languages Immersion programs 2018-19 Open 10 new World Languages Immersion programs 2019-20 Open 10 new World Languages Immersion programs 2020-21 Open 10 new World Languages Immersion programs 2021-22 Open 10 new World Languages Immersion programs 2022-23 Open 10 new World Languages Immersion programs 2023-24 Open remaining elementary schools with World Languages Immersion Programs

Recommendation C: Provide school-based World Languages Immersion programs at all elementary schools that do not have an Immersion Program. This option is not recommended as viable at this time, however, is offered for future consideration.


http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/dualimmersion/

Cost for Recommendation C: Number of Sites







97 23,500 1.69 FTEs per school 97 schools = 164 FTEs

1.0 FTE $12,605,545 $5,000 One-Time + $5,000 Recurring per school

$13,090,545

1 One school-based 194-day teacher FTE (salary +benefits) = $76,340

2One non-school-based 218-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $85,785

Component 1B: School-wide Programs

Recommendation D: Replace Foreign Language in Elementary School (FLES) Programs with Language through Content Programs FLES programs are currently offered in 46 elementary schools. The target language is taught through reinforcing content area FCPS Program of Studies (POS) standards in science, social studies, language arts and mathematics during two thirty-minute periods each week.

Strengths: • Access: FLES is currently provided to all grade 1-6 students in an elementary school. • The FCPS FLES Program Final Evaluation Report (2014) found it to be a model that should be

continued with modifications (Fairfax County Public Schools Office of Program Evaluation, 2014). Although current research demonstrates that 90 minutes or more of instruction is recommended, the FCPS FLES 60-minute model was found to be effective and students were able to meet expected language benchmarks.

• FLES reinforces the FCPS POS and the target language is taught simultaneously through the content areas so that instructional time is maximized and time is not lost teaching language in isolation (Grabe & Stoller, 1997).

• FLES students who were also students with disabilities (SWD) had higher Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) assessment pass rates than SWD not participating in FLES programs (Fairfax County Public Schools Office of Program Evaluation, 2014).

Challenges: • Scheduling: FLES is only offered one hour per week in the current elementary school schedule.

Research demonstrates that 90 minutes or more of instruction per week is recommended for this model. Scheduling adequate time in the elementary schedule has been a challenge. This challenge will now be addressed through the additional hours added to students’ weekly


http://www.fcps.edu/pla/ope/docs/2013-14/fles_yr3_execrpt.pdf

http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/grabe_stoller1997/READING1/foundation.htm



instructional time through the new elementary schedule beginning September 2014, as approved by the School Board on June 26, 2014.

• Cost: The FLES teacher is a cost in addition to elementary general education staffing provided to elementary schools. The current staffing formula is one full time equivalent (FTE) FLES teacher for every 450 students (1/450).

• FLES curriculum currently reinforces the four traditional core content areas. It is challenging for FLES teachers to develop expertise in supporting four distinct content areas, and the time spent on each content area is limited.

• The FCPS FLES Program Final Evaluation (2014) (Fairfax County Public Schools Office of Program Evaluation, 2014) found that fewer former FLES students were enrolling in World Languages in seventh grade (34%) than students who had not taken World Languages in elementary school (41%). Vertical articulation between FLES at the elementary school level and middle school is a challenge. (Recommendations F, G, and I address this challenge.)

Considerations for Implementation: There are two proposed models for this recommendation:

1) Language Through Science (LTS) – Teach the target language through reinforcement of one content area only (e.g., science) for one hour per week to all students in grades K-6.

2) Language through Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts and Mathematics (L-STEAM) – Teach the target language through an integrated content area (STEAM) approach one hour per week to all students in grades K-6.

Language through Science (LTS) – With this approach, prioritized content standards in one content area (e.g., science) that have been taught in English can be reinforced through the target language during hands-on problem-based learning during a one-hour block weekly. L-STEAM – To prepare students with 21st century skills to become successful in a global context, development of STEAM skills provides an advantage. With L-STEAM, the target language is taught simultaneously through hands-on project-based STEAM activities one hour per week. This model maximizes instructional time and has the dual benefit of teaching the target language while simultaneously developing student achievement and knowledge in STEAM. Additionally, cultural aspects can be infused through the arts component of STEAM. Both of these models would be scheduled in a manner similar to elementary art or music, with students receiving a one hour block weekly. During this time, the classroom teacher would have additional planning time, while the World Languages teacher would facilitate the lesson. To reduce costs for these models, the FLES teacher staffing model has been modified to be included as part of the designated staffing for “specials” such as art, music, and physical education. It is recommended that these program models be expanded to include kindergarten and be piloted to determine effectiveness before expansion in FCPS.

Recommendation D: Replace the FLES program with a Language Through Content (Language through Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, and Mathematics [L-STEAM] program or Language Through Science [LTS] program) at the existing FLES schools.




• Access: Offers all students world languages programs through highly qualified World Languages teachers while simultaneously developing science or STEAM skills to maximize instructional time.

• Uses high quality, rigorous FCPS science or STEAM lessons taught through a world language to simultaneously teach language through content.

• Efficiently maximizes time and resources by teaching science or STEAM concepts through a hands-on approach by a highly-qualified World Languages teacher during a 45-60 minute face-to-face session each week.

• Scheduling: Scheduling one hour per week of world languages instruction in the current elementary school schedule has been challenging, but will now be facilitated by the increase in students’ weekly instructional time with the elementary schedule changes that will begin September 2014. Scheduling this model in a way similar to art or music will benefit teachers by providing additional planning time to classroom teachers’ schedules.

• Costs: This model requires World Language teacher staffing costs. • Professional development would need to be provided to all elementary LTS or L-STEAM World

Language teachers to teach science or STEAM standards through a world language. • Greater student/teacher ratio creates some challenges for instruction as well as assessment.

Implementation Plan: It is recommended that the new LTS or L-STEAM model be phased in during the next five years in the following manner:

2014-15 Develop kindergarten lessons for LTS or L-STEAM model 2015-16 Pilot kindergarten lessons at five FLES schools and develop grade 1 lessons 2016-17

Pilot grade 1 lessons and develop grade 2 and 3 lessons and expand pilot to 20 additional FLES schools*

2017-18

Pilot grades 2 and 3 lessons and develop grades 4 and 5 lessons and expand pilot to 21 additional FLES schools*

2018-19

Pilot grades 4 and 5 lessons and develop grade 6 lessons and expand pilot to remaining schools and students in Immersion schools not receiving Immersion instruction*

*Based on success of pilot, expand to additional schools (see Option E for further details)

Cost for Recommendation D: Number of Sites




Totals Salary and Benefits2



46 25,489 47.6 FTEs 1.0 FTE (existing)

$4,700,000 $5,000 One-Time + $5,000 Recurring per school

$4,900,000

1 One non-school-based 218-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $85,785 2 Existing FLES teachers’ salary + benefits estimate


Recommendation E: Provide a Language through Content Program (L-STEAM or LTS) for elementary students (grades K-6) currently not receiving world languages instruction World languages programs during the school day (Immersion and FLES) are currently offered only to approximately 30% (29,126) of all FCPS elementary students. Approximately 70% (68,105) of all FCPS elementary students do not have access to world language programs during the school day. This includes students at Immersion schools who are currently not served by the program. To be equitable across schools and to provide World Languages programs during the school day to all students at all elementary schools in a feasible, high quality, cost-effective manner, one recommendation is to provide all students language through an LTS or L-STEAM approach.

Strengths: • Access: Offers all students world languages programs through highly qualified World Languages

teachers while simultaneously developing science or STEAM skills to maximize instructional time.

• Uses high quality, rigorous FCPS science or STEAM lessons taught through world language to simultaneously teach language through content.

• Efficiently maximizes time and resources by teaching science or STEAM concepts through a hands-on approach by a highly-qualified World Languages teacher during a 45-60 minute face-to-face session each week.

• Scheduling this model in a way similar to art or music will benefit teachers by providing additional planning time to elementary classroom teachers’ schedules.

Challenges: • Scheduling: Scheduling one hour per week of LTS or L-STEAM in the current elementary school

schedule has been challenging, but will now be facilitated by the increase in students’ weekly instructional time with the elementary schedule changes that will begin September 2014.

• Costs: This model requires World Language teacher staffing costs. • Professional development will need to be provided to all elementary L-STEAM or LTS World

Language teachers to teach STEAM or science standards through a world language. • Greater student/teacher ratio creates some challenges for instruction as well as assessment. • Recruiting sufficient World Language Teachers with elementary expertise is challenging.

Considerations for Implementation: With this option, L-STEAM or LTS would be offered to all schools without world language programs as well as to all students in Immersion schools including those not participating in the Immersion program. The L-STEAM or LTS model would need to be offered on a pilot basis first to determine feasibility and effectiveness.

Recommendation E: Provide a Language Through Content (L-STEAM or LTS) program for elementary (grades K-6) students currently not receiving world languages instruction.


Implementation Plan: If successful, the model could be phased in over five years as follows:

2014-15 Develop kindergarten lessons for LTS or L-STEAM model 2015-16 Pilot kindergarten lessons at five FLES schools and develop grade 1 lessons 2016-17

Pilot grade 1 lessons and develop grade 2 and 3 lessons (expand pilot to 20 additional FLES schools)

2017-18

Pilot grades 2 and 3 lessons and develop grades 4 and 5 lessons (expand pilot to 21 additional FLES schools)

2018-19

Pilot grades 4 and 5 lessons and develop grade 6 lessons (expand pilot to remaining schools and all students in Immersion schools including those not receiving Immersion instruction)

Cost for Recommendation E: Number of Sites







93 61,605 100.0 FTEs 2.0 FTEs $7,805,570 $5,000 One-Time + $5000 Recurring per school

$8,270,570

1 One school-based 194-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $76,340

2 One non-school-based 218-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $85,785

Researched and Not Recommended: Offer FLES model only at upper grade levels FLES is currently offered in grades 1-6 at 46 schools. One consideration included in the FCPS FLES Program Final Evaluation (2014) was to offer FLES only at upper grade levels, and not at lower grade levels.

Strengths: • Costs: Reduces costs of programs offered to each school. • Provides an option to provide program to more schools for less costs.

Challenges: • This model would significantly diminish students’ capacity to reach the level of communicative

competency by graduation. • Access: The option does not offer world languages to all FCPS students, and would remove FLES

programs now being offered to students in lower elementary grades. • Research demonstrates that a K-12 uninterrupted sequence of language study is necessary for

developing the level of communicative competence (ACTFL scale intermediate – high level) needed to effectively use the target language being studied.


• Some students need more time for language acquisition than others and this model would not adequately provide for those differentiated needs.

Considerations for Implementation: The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) research shows that students who receive a continuous sequence of language instruction starting in kindergarten or grade 1 will reach the Intermediate-High level of proficiency by graduation (see chart below). Beginning language learning in kindergarten or first grade serves as a critical component for developing language proficiency to reach communicative competence. The delay of early language learning opportunities until grades 3 or 4 would significantly diminish students’ capacity to reach higher levels of language proficiency (Intermediate-High for students with a K-12 articulated language learning experience), and could negatively affect the achievement outcomes of the school division goal (Student Achievement Goal 1.2) of having all students become communicatively competent in at least two languages by graduation.

ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners:

Language Learner Performance Outcomes

Cost for Offering FLES model only at upper grade levels: Number of Sites







139 46,797 (students in grades 4-6)

104 FTEs 0.5 FTE $7,982,253 $278,000 ($2,000 per school)

$8,260,253



Reduce the grade levels at which FLES is offered. This option was investigated, but is not recommended, as research demonstrates that it would impair attainment of the goal of students developing communicative competency by graduation.


Researched and Not Recommended: Technology Programs A wide variety of current online world languages programs were researched for feasibility of implementation. These included:

• Rosetta Stone • Middebury Interactive Programs • Mango • Other related programs

Strengths:

• Access: Students can choose from a variety of languages to study at the same school. • Students can progress at his or her own pace and can continue access as a supplement outside

of the school day.

Challenges: • Research does not demonstrate effectiveness of these programs in reaching communicative

competence (Nielson & Freynik, 2008) (Nielson, Doughty, & Freynik, 2008) (ACTFL, 2013). • Costs: Recurring annual cost per pupil/school. • Scheduling: Scheduling during school-day is challenging. • Course content not related to FCPS Program of Studies (focus on social language). • Developmentally inappropriate for younger elementary students without live teacher support.

Considerations for Implementation: Although suitable as a supplement to teacher-provided instruction, this option is not recommended by the Working Group as a feasible school-day option. The primary reason for not recommending this option is that research does not support the effectiveness of these models as a “stand-alone” approach to language learning. A recent University of Maryland study (Nielson & Freynik, 2008) (Nielson, Doughty, & Freynik, 2008) of the Rosetta Stone 3 states that “Rosetta Stone may be a useful tool to supplement vocabulary acquisition in a more well-rounded language course, but as a stand-alone product, Rosetta Stone is unlikely to be the solution to the U.S. Government’s language learning needs” (Nielson & Freynik, 2008). The current CEO of Rosetta Stone has stated that “technology is a tool, not a substitute for a good teacher” (ACTFL, 2013). In a review of web based online language technology, the reviewers conclude that Middlebury Interactive Languages is a way to supplement an existing language program (Web of World Languages, 2011). Additionally, Mango and other technology programs currently available do not teach language through content areas, which is one of the most effective approaches to teach language. Since the technology

Provide World Languages instruction through a technology program. This option was thoroughly researched to provide a technological alternative to teacher-provided world languages instruction and is not recommended, as the efficacy of this approach at the elementary level is not supported by research.


http://www.casl.umd.edu/sites/default/files/Nielson08_RosettaStoneFalls.pdf

http://www.casl.umd.edu/sites/default/files/Nielson08_RosettaStoneFindings.pdf

https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/AOD/RosettaStoneQ%2BA.pdf





https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/AOD/RosettaStoneQ%2BA.pdf

http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=2713

programs are focused on teaching primarily social language or supporting speaking practice, time would be taken away from instruction of the FCPS Program of Studies if these programs were offered during the school day. Additionally, there would be a cost for staff, such as Instructional Assistants, to supervise students during the time students would be using technology programs. Due to lack of research supporting effectiveness, costs, time taken away from teaching the FCPS POS to teach social language, scheduling issues and the challenge of developmental inappropriateness for younger students, technology programs are not recommended as a stand-alone option to replace world languages teachers. Costs for providing virtual teacher options for the Middlebury Interactive Program and Rosetta Stone, are the same or more than the cost of live highly qualified World Language teachers as described in Recommendations E and F.

Costs for Middlebury Interactive Program: Number of Sites







139 93,594 (all but current immersion students)

156 FTEs – Instructional Assistants

1.0 FTE $6,040,305 Program Only = $764,500 Headsets = $161,240 One Hour/Week Virtual Teacher = $7,884,250

$6,966,045 (no virtual teacher) $14,850,295 (with virtual teacher)



Costs for Rosetta Stone Program: Number of Sites







139 93,594 (all but current immersion students)

156 FTEs – Instructional Assistants

1.0 FTE $6,040,305 Program Only = $2,807,820 Headsets = $161,240 Eight 30 Minute Virtual Teacher Sessions with Program = $21,433,026

$9,009,365 (no virtual teacher) $30,442,391 (with 8 virtual teacher sessions)


2 One non-school-based 218-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $85,785


Section 1: World Languages Elementary Models Recommendations Summary Recommendation A: Expand School-Based Two-Way Immersion programs to elementary schools with eligible populations. Recommendation B: Offer World Languages Immersion programs in critical languages (e.g. Chinese). Recommendation C: Provide school-based World Languages Immersion programs at all elementary schools that do not have an Immersion Program. This option is not recommended as viable at this time, however, is offered for future consideration. Recommendation D: Replace the FLES program with a Language Through Content (Language through Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, and Mathematics [L-STEAM] program or Language Through Science [LTS] program) at the existing FLES schools. Recommendation E: Provide a Language Through Content (L-STEAM or LTS) program for elementary (grade K-6) students currently not receiving world languages instruction. Researched and Not Recommended: Reduce the grade levels at which FLES is offered. This option was investigated, but is not recommended, as research demonstrates that it would impair attainment of the goal of students developing communicative competency by graduation. Researched and Not Recommended: Provide World Languages instruction through a technology program. This option was thoroughly researched to provide a technological alternative to teacher-provided world languages instruction and is not recommended, as the efficacy of this approach at the elementary level is not supported by research.


World Languages Elementary Models Recommendations Cost Chart

$ in Millions FY 2014 Program Budget Recommendations to Offer World Languages at all Elementary Schools

A B

Program Foreign Language Immersion

Foreign Language in the Elementary

Schools (FLES)

Expand School-based Two-way Immersion

to Eligible Schools

Offer Critical Languages Immersion

Programs (e.g. Chinese)

Language Through Content**

Language through content at former FLES

sites**

Language through content at remaining

ES**

Elementary Schools 16 46 21 5 46 93

Positions SB 14.5 ES Teacher 12.0 ES IA

2.67 MS Teacher

61.5 ES Teacher 0.0 1.0* -13.9 ES Teacher 100.0 ES Teacher

NSB 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0

Logistics $ 0.02 $ - One-Time $0.1 Recurring $0.1

One-Time $0.03 Recurring $0.03



Recurring Program Cost $ 2.1 $ 5.5 $ 0.1 $ 0.03 $ (0.8) $ 8.3

One-time Funds Required $ 0.8

Recurring Funds Required for A, B, D and E $ 7.6

Recurring Spend on FLI + Language Through Content $ 15.3

*Up to 1.0 FTE may be required to ensure continuation of services as students progress to middle school (not included in cost)

**Staffing modeled after elementary art/music/pe.


Section 2: K-12 Vertical Articulation All FCPS middle and high schools offer world languages programs in grades 7-12 to provide students the opportunity to develop communicative competency in two or more languages, aligning with Student Achievement Goals 1.2 and 1.4, as well as the attributes of a Portrait of a Graduate (POG). With a focus on performance in the target language, the secondary World Languages program prepares students with the skills, knowledge, and proficiency necessary to use the language in job, career and higher education opportunities. As more elementary students with world languages experience move up to the secondary level, a new challenge emerging recently is that of providing the variety of languages and levels that align with students’ elementary experiences.

Middle School World Languages Program: At the middle school level, the Communicative Language Teaching approach (CLT) is used to facilitate the language learning process. The primary goal of this approach is to enable students to use the target language to communicate. World Languages course offerings at the middle school level are open to all students. Courses are designed to accommodate the language learning needs of learners entering middle school with varying language background experiences. All FCPS middle schools provide World Languages instruction in grades 7-8. Language offerings at the middle school level include: Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean (online), Latin, and Spanish. French and Spanish are offered at all middle schools in the division.

High School World Languages Program: The Communicative Language Teaching approach (CLT) is also used at the high school level to facilitate the language learning process and assist students in achieving high levels of proficiency in the target language. World Languages course offerings at the high school level are open to all students meeting prerequisite requirements. Courses are designed to accommodate the language learning needs of learners entering the secondary program with varying language background experiences. All FCPS high schools provide World Languages instruction in grades 9-12. Languages offered at the high school level include: American Sign Language, Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Latin, Russian, and Spanish. Similar to middle schools, French and Spanish are offered at each high school.

Strengths:

• 47% of grade 12 students in FCPS are communicatively competent in at least two languages. • A variety of languages and language learning programs are available to students. • FCPS has nationally and internationally recognized World Languages Programs.


Challenges:

• Providing vertical articulation at the secondary level for the variety of languages offered at elementary schools.

• Offering higher level language courses with limited enrollment for a variety of languages. • Providing adequate staffing to accommodate the variety of languages (and courses) articulating

up from elementary schools, and recruiting qualified teachers. • Students now have a broader range of elective course offerings (other than World Languages) to

select from at the middle school level which affects World Languages enrollment. • Growth in high school World Languages enrollment is impacted by the addition of new high

school requirements in other content areas (e.g., Economics and Personal Finance). • Providing authentic opportunities to apply the target language beyond the classroom can be

challenging.

Recommendation F: Develop and Offer Synchronous Virtual Credit-Bearing Language Courses at the Secondary Level There are currently no synchronous virtual language learning opportunities available to middle school students. Students at all high schools in grades 9-12 have access to synchronous virtual language courses (Arabic 1, 2, and 3) provided through the Electronic Classroom at Hayfield Secondary School.

Strengths: • Offers all secondary students access to additional languages and levels by synchronous virtual

learning. • Increases opportunities for K-12 vertical articulation if a student transfers to another school that

may not offer the language the student started learning at the prior school. • Boosts face-to-face class sizes for courses that may not be offered due to low enrollment by

adding students taking the course synchronously. • Provides wide range of language offerings to all students in a cost effective method.

Challenges: • Aligning students’ schedules with the transmission of synchronous courses. • Providing designated space and supervision in schools to support virtual language learning. • Designating staff to troubleshoot technology concerns. • Funding for technology associated with the delivery of synchronous language learning. • Learning virtually is not suitable/appropriate for all learning styles. • Identifying dynamic and engaging teachers to deliver virtual lessons. • Decreased interaction between teacher and student participating virtually.

Recommendation F: Develop and offer synchronous virtual credit-bearing language courses at the secondary level.


Considerations for Implementation: Synchronous virtual courses would be made available to middle school and high school students (for languages other than Spanish and French) when there is insufficient enrollment to offer a face-to-face course in a middle or high school. Middle and high school students, whose schedules would not permit access to face-to-face World Language instruction at their schools, in need of courses beyond the language levels offered, or selecting to learn a less commonly taught language not available at the school site, would benefit from this option.

Implementation Plan: It is recommended that new synchronous virtual language courses be piloted and phased in during the next five years in the following manner:

2014-15

Develop synchronous virtual Level 1 language courses (in all languages other than Spanish and French).

2015-16 Pilot synchronous Level 1 virtual language courses and develop Level 2 courses. 2016-17 Pilot synchronous Level 2 courses and develop Level 3 and 4 courses. 2017-18 Pilot synchronous Levels 3 and 4 courses and develop AP courses. 2018-19 Pilot AP courses and refine and update previously developed courses.

The following are languages and levels to be developed:

• American Sign Language Levels 1-4 • Arabic Level 4 • Chinese Levels 1-4 & AP • German Levels 1-4 & AP • Japanese Levels 1-4 & AP • Korean Levels 1-4 • Latin Levels 1-4 & AP • Russian Levels 1-4 & AP


Cost for Recommendation F: Number of Sites





Additional Technology Cost

One-time Start-up Cost

Total Recurring Annual Cost

51 (all MS and HS)

Open to all MS and HS students

0 0.25 FTE = $21,446

First year $600 per teacher for PD $5,000 course development per class

$5003 per base class site X 34 = $17,000 $30 per headset X 30 per school X 51 = $45,900

$500 per base class site X 34 = $17,000 $30 per headset X 30 per school X 51 = $45,900 $5600 PD + course development X 34 = $190,400 TOTAL = $253,300

$21,446

1One school-based 194-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $76,340 2One non-school-based 218-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $85,785 3Total cost for speakers, microphone and camera

Recommendation G: Expand FCPS Online Campus Language Course Offerings Middle school and high school students (grades 8-12) have access to FCPS Online Campus World Languages courses that deliver language courses identical in content to those offered in traditional classrooms and use multi-media to engage students. These courses are aligned with the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) and follow the Fairfax County Public Schools Program of Studies (POS). This program accommodates students with scheduling conflicts, special medical needs requiring a home or hospital setting, special needs requiring a flexible schedule, or seeking to complete high school graduation requirements. The FCPS Online Campus is similar to a traditional, face-to-face class by having a dedicated teacher, lessons, homework, due dates, class discussions and assessments. The difference is that the courses are Internet-based courses. They are interactive and student-centered. Students are responsible for their own learning, working at their own pace and personalizing their learning styles. A student spends approximately six to seven hours per week learning at his/her own pace and participates in a 90 minute synchronous chat each week.


The following are virtual learning opportunities currently available to students in grades 8-12. Through the FCPS Online Campus Blended model with teacher support

Through Virtual Virginia (VDOE) Blended model with some teacher support

• Spanish 1, 2, and 3 • AP Spanish Language • AP Spanish Literature • Korean 1, 2, and 3

• Latin 1, 2, 3, 4, and AP • French 1, 2, and AP • Chinese 1, 2, 3, 4, and AP • Arabic 1, 2, and 3 • AP Spanish Language

Strengths:

• Provides flexible scheduling options and access to World Languages courses for students with scheduling conflicts.

• Allows options for students with previous language backgrounds to pursue language levels not available at their school site.

• Permits students access to courses at any time and to work at their own pace. • Generates revenue through the FCPS Online Campus if added as an eighth period to students’

schedules.

Challenges: • Limited immediate spontaneous teacher feedback. • Virtual courses not suitable/appropriate for all learning styles. • Recruitment of teachers to develop and deliver virtual lessons. • Availability of support for students with the monitoring of courses and administration of

assessments on-site. • Assignment of dedicated space and supervision to support virtual language learning.

Considerations for Implementation: The additional FCPS Online campus language courses would be available for students in grades 7-12 to select when there is insufficient enrollment to offer a face-to-face course in middle or high school, and would complement and not duplicate those offered through Virtual Virginia.

Implementation Plan: It is recommended that the following FCPS Online language courses be phased in during the next five years in the following manner:

Recommendation G: Expand FCPS Online Campus Language Course Offerings.


2014-15 Develop Level 1 courses in FCPS languages in designated languages. 2015-16 Offer newly developed Level 1 courses and develop Level 2 courses. 2016-17 Offer newly developed Level 2 courses and develop Level 3 courses. 2017-18 Offer newly developed Level 3 courses and develop upper level courses. 2018-19 Offer upper level courses and refine and update previous courses.

The following are languages and levels to be developed:

• American Sign Language Levels 1-4 • Arabic Level 4 • Chinese Level AP • German Levels 1-4, and AP • Japanese Levels 1-4, and AP • Russian Levels 1-4, and AP

Cost for Recommendation G: Number of Sites








51 (all MS and HS)


$15,268 per class

0.25 FTE = $21,446

First year $2,250 materials per class $10,000 course development per class

0 $12,250 per class X 21 classes = $257,250

$21,446 + $15,268 per class X 21 classes = $342,074

1One school-based 194-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $76,340 2One non-school-based 218-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $85,785

Recommendation H: Offer Additional Language Courses at FCPS High School Academies A high school academy is a center within an existing high school that offers advanced technical and specialized courses that successfully integrate career and academic preparation. Currently, the division provides transportation to these locations from students’ base schools. The following are current high school Academies with World Languages offerings:

• Fairfax: Chinese and Korean • Marshall: Chinese


http://www.fcps.edu/is/cte/academies.shtml

Strengths: • Students have access to face-to-face language instruction. • Additional language offerings available to students within proximity of the Academy site. • Structure for offering the Academy language program is already in place. • Transportation framework already provided. • Accessibility to languages for which staff is difficult to recruit.

Challenges: • Students may lose a period of instruction due to travel time. • Instruction may be interrupted due to adjustments to regular schedule at base schools. • Attrition and sustainability of enrollment in courses with low enrollment.

Considerations for Implementation: It is recommended that additional less commonly taught languages be added to the two Academies offering language courses and that the possibility of expanding languages to additional academies to ensure geographic access be explored.

Implementation Plan: The language selection would be determined by administrators and stakeholders based on student interest collected via survey, using the following implementation plan:

2014-15

Determine languages to be added to Language Academy site(s). Consider expansion to additional Academies for geographic access.

2015-16 Add Level 1 of language(s) selected to Academy site(s). 2016-17 Add Level 2 of language(s) selected to Academy site(s). 2017-18 Add Level 3 and 4 of language(s) selected to Academy site(s). 2018-19

Add upper level of language(s) selected to Academy site(s) and continue expansion to additional language(s), level(s) and Academy sites.

Recommendation H: Offer additional language courses at FCPS High School Academies.


Cost for Recommendation H: Number of Sites








6 Open to all HS students

$15,268 per class

0.25 FTE = $21,446

0 0 $15,268 per class

$15,268 per class + 0.25 FTE Non-School Based Support


Recommendation I: Condense and Enhance Middle School World Languages Course Offerings The following World Languages courses offerings are currently offered at the middle school level:

• 8th grade Level 1 (full year credit course) • Immersion 1 (full year credit course) • Immersion 2 (full year credit course) • Introduction to Foreign Language (semester non-credit course) • Introduction to Spanish (semester non-credit course) • Introduction to French (semester non-credit course) • Introduction to Arabic (semester non-credit course) • Level 1, Part A (semester non-credit course) • Level 1, Part A (full year non-credit course) • Level 1, Part B (full year credit course) • Spanish for Fluent Speakers

Strengths:

• Variety of course offerings allow more elective options for students. • Level 1, Part A and Level 1, Part B course sequence allows students to gain additional guided

practice, achieve a deeper level of understanding of language objectives, and allows opportunity for the introduction of Level 2 concepts.

• Grade seven students wishing to delay enrollment in high school credit-bearing courses are provided access to noncredit-bearing World Languages course offerings.

• World Languages courses designed to meet the learning needs of students with varied language education backgrounds are available to students.

• Native/heritage speakers are offered the Spanish for Fluent Speakers (SFS) courses designed to meet their specific language learning needs.


Challenges: • Extensive selection of elective options may result in low enrollment in languages other than

Spanish and French. • Challenge for middle schools to offer all courses for languages offered at its feeder elementary

schools to provide vertical articulation. • Current language courses for 7th grade students are not credit bearing, except for Immersion 1.

Considerations for Implementation: The following are current middle school World Languages offerings and proposed new Level 1 and Level 2 full-year course offerings, which would become available to seventh and eighth grade students as early language learning opportunities are phased-in at elementary schools: Current Middle School Course Offerings Proposed Middle School Course Offerings

• 8th grade Level 1 (full year credit course) • Immersion 1 (full year credit course) • Immersion 2 (full year credit course) • Introduction to Foreign Language (semester

non-credit course) • Introduction to Spanish (semester non-credit

course) • Introduction to French (semester non-credit

course) • Introduction to Arabic (semester non-credit

course) • Level 1, Part A (semester non-credit course) • Level 1, Part A (full year non-credit course) • Level 1, Part B (full year credit course) • Spanish for Fluent Speakers

• (Target Language) for Beginners-1 full-year credit-bearing course for students without language experience

• Level 1 full-year credit-bearing course • Level 2 full-year credit-bearing course • Immersion 1 - full-year credit-bearing course • Immersion 2 - full-year credit-bearing course • (Spanish for Fluent Speakers-only in schools

with sufficient enrollment)

Condensed World Languages course options will ease scheduling issues at middle schools. All grade seven students will have the opportunity to enroll in credit-bearing World Languages courses. Providing Level 1 credit-bearing language courses will be one additional way to improve vertical articulation in language of former FLES students going to middle school. Students in seventh grade will be placed in appropriate levels of courses based on results of their 6th grade language performance assessment (Jr. PALS). Students without previous language instruction (students moving in to FCPS) can take introductory courses with no prerequisite of language experience.

Recommendation I: Condense and enhance Middle School World Languages offerings.


Implementation Plan: It is recommended that Level 1 (full-year) and Level 2 (full-year) World Languages courses be phased in during the next five years in the following manner:

2014-15

Develop plan and revisions to offer full-year Level 1 and Level 2 World Languages courses for students articulating up from elementary World Languages school-wide programs during following year.

2015-16

Offer Level 1 World Languages courses for grade seven (or eight) students articulating up from elementary world languages school-wide programs and offer full-year Level 2 World Languages courses for grade eight students at six pilot sites.

2016-17 Offer Level 1 and Level 2 courses at six additional middle school sites 2017-18 Expand to six additional middle school sites 2018-19 Complete expansion to remaining middle school sites

Cost for Recommendation I: Number of Sites








All middle schools

Open to all MS students

0 0.25 FTE = $21,446

First year $5,000 curriculum revision per level per language (16 courses)

0 $80,000 $21,446


Recommendation J: Develop and Offer a Biliteracy Diploma Seal A Biliteracy Seal is a diploma seal awarded to students in recognition of proficiency attained in two or more languages upon high school graduation. Several states, including California, Illinois, New Mexico and New York, currently offer the Biliteracy Seal. Other states, including Delaware, Florida, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin as well as individual school divisions, are in the process of adopting the Biliteracy Seal. Currently Virginia does not offer a Biliteracy Seal, however, FCPS may offer it as a locally-awarded seal. The development of communicative competence in English and a world language is a critical 21st century skill in preparing FCPS students to meet the economic and labor demands of an increasingly global society. Proficiency in other languages and English will enable the next generation of business leaders and workers to continue to grow the country’s economic capacity. This diploma seal can designate a student’s biliteracy skills to colleges and future employers.


Strengths:

• Designates that an individual is proficient and literate in English and a language other than English.

• Gives students an incentive to increase their language skills and provides employers and universities with a reliable indicator of this bilingual/biliterate skill set.

• Celebrates and honors the diversity of our students and their academic achievements. • Assists students in recognizing the value of their academic success and appreciating the tangible

benefits of being bilingual. • Rewards students who decide to continue their language learning at higher levels. • Validates the attainment of a marketable 21st Century skill for the world of work and college. • Recognizes language as an asset for heritage speakers of target languages. • Motivates students to take upper level courses such as AP which are often college credit bearing

courses, which can provide cost savings in college tuition.

Challenges: • Collection of data in determining students who have met the requirements for earning the

Biliteracy Seal.

Considerations for Implementation: The implementation of an FCPS Biliteracy Seal would support Student Achievement Goal 1.2 and the outcomes of the Portrait of a Graduate, validating that students are able to communicate in two or more languages and promoting a long sequence of sustained language learning, in the development of higher language proficiency levels.

Implementation Plan: It is recommended that the Biliteracy Diploma Seal be implemented in the following manner:

2014-15

Develop an FCPS Biliteracy Seal through the review of research literature and existing local and state Biliteracy Seal programs, to establish criteria and process for awarding the seal. Request School Board approval and when obtained, communicate criteria to schools.

2015-16

Award the FCPS Biliteracy Seal to students demonstrating proficiency in English and one or more world languages.

2016-19

Continue to award the FCPS Biliteracy Seal to students demonstrating proficiency in English and one or more world languages.

Recommendation J: Develop and offer a Biliteracy Diploma Seal.


Cost for Recommendation J: Number of Sites






One-Time Start Up Cost


All high schools

Open to all HS students

0 0

$1,000 materials $9,000 hourly staff

0 $10,000 $10,000

Pilot: Language through Content in Middle Schools FCPS currently does not offer language through content areas at the secondary level. Students at the elementary level study language through content areas in all types of Immersion and FLES programs, and would also do so through the proposed LTS or L-STEAM programs. This model would continue academic language development at the middle school level.

Strengths:

• Provides increased opportunity for continued study of target languages learned in elementary Immersion and FLES programs.

• Increases opportunity for students to develop increased proficiency in a target language via combined content through language course offerings (Grabe & Stoller, 1997).

• Minimizes student attrition at the middle school level by offering language instruction through a required content area course, thus freeing up an elective.

Challenges: • Teaching content through the target language may pose a hiring challenge of recruiting content

teachers proficient in the target language. • Configuring master schedule to accommodate content through target language course offerings

may be challenging. • Attaining community support for content through target language course offerings may be

challenging.

Considerations for Implementation: These courses could be made available to students articulating up to middle school from elementary Immersion and FLES (or LTS or L-STEAM) programs. This would allow students the opportunity to meet

Pilot: Develop and pilot grade seven and grade eight science courses taught through a target language to determine feasibility and effectiveness.


http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/grabe_stoller1997/READING1/foundation.htm

content requirements, while freeing up elective course options. This would create an additional option to improve vertical articulation in language of students moving from elementary to middle school.

Implementation Plan: It is recommended that Level 1 (full-year) and Level 2 (full-year) World Languages courses be phased in the following manner:

2014-15 Develop materials and recruit science certified teacher(s) for pilot. 2015-16

Pilot grade seven science content through target language courses in two schools in pyramids with Immersion programs.

2016-17

Pilot grade eight science content through target language courses in two pilot schools in pyramids with Immersion programs.

2017-18 If successful, expand pilot to all middle schools with Immersion programs. 2018-19 Expand pilot to all middle schools.

Enhancement: Supplemental Language Laboratory System Stevens Learning Systems, Inc.’s Renaissance 2200 is a state-of-the-art language laboratory which integrates instructional technology into the classroom to enhance students’ learning experiences. This advanced language laboratory technology is used in school systems across the U.S. including Lubbock, Texas and in FCPS. Currently, four FCPS high schools are equipped with Renaissance 2200 Language Laboratories. The language laboratory is designed to support classroom pairing and grouping of students to facilitate speaking practice to enhance day to day instruction in the world languages classroom. The system consists of a teacher console desk, drop down headsets from overhead trays, and supporting audio visual equipment to support teachers and students in their use of the language laboratory. Students can practice communicating in the target language with one another as the teacher monitors and assesses student progress. The teacher can use an on-screen scoring rubric with division-designed performance assessments to monitor students’ progress.

Stevens Learning Systems, Inc.’s Renaissance 2200 Video The cost per classroom of the Renaissance 2200 is $25,000. Providing one Renaissance 2200 system per school for 196 schools would total $4,900,000.


http://www.fcps.edu/is/worldlanguages/images/Lab.wmv

http://www.fcps.edu/is/worldlanguages/images/Lab.wmv�

Section 2: K-12 Vertical Articulation Recommendations Summary Recommendation F: Develop and offer synchronous virtual credit-bearing language courses at the secondary level. Recommendation G: Expand FCPS Online Campus Language Course Offerings. Recommendation H: Offer additional language courses at FCPS High School Academies. Recommendation I: Condense and enhance Middle School World Languages offerings. Recommendation J: Develop and offer a Biliteracy Diploma Seal. Pilot: Develop and pilot grade seven and grade eight science courses taught through a target language to determine feasibility and effectiveness. Enhancement: Supplemental Language Laboratories: Add state-of-the-art language laboratories to schools as fiscally feasible.


K-12 Vertical Articulation Recommendations Cost Chart Recommendation F

Recommendation G Recommendation H Recommendation I Recommendation J Stevens Language

Laboratories Recommendation Offer synchronous virtual

language courses Expand FCPS Online Campus

language course offerings Offer additional language courses at FCPS Academies

Condense and enhance MS World Languages offerings

Offer a Biliteracy Diploma Seal

Provide supplemental language laboratories to all schools

Number of Sites 51 (all MS and HS)

51 (all MS and HS) 6 All middle schools All high schools 196

Number of Students Served



Open to all HS students Open to all MS students Open to all HS students All students

School-Based Positions 0 $15,268 per class2 X 21 classes** = $320,628

$15,268 per class2 0 0 0


0.25 FTEi = $21,446

0.25 FTE1 = $21,446

0.25 FTE1 = $21,446 0.25 FTE1 = $21,446 0 0

Professional Development/ Materials/Course Development Cost

First year $600 per teacher for PD + $5,000 course development per class x 34 classes* = $190,400

First year $2,250 materials per class $10,000 course development per class

0 First year $5,000 curriculum revision per level per language (16 courses)

$1,000 materials $9,000 hourly staff

0


$5003 per base class site X 34 = $17,000 $30 per headset X 30 per school X 51 = $45,900

0 0 0 0 1 classroom per school @$25,000 per classroom

One-time Start-up Cost $500 per base class site X 34 = $17,000 $30 per headset X 30 per school X 51 = $45,900 $5600 PD + course development X 34 = $190,400 TOTAL = $253,300

$12,250 per class X 21 classes = $257,250

$15,268 per class $80,000 $10,000 $4,900,000


$21,446 (0.25 FTE Support)

$15,268 per class X 21 classes + $21,446 (0.25 FTE Support) = $342,074

$15,268 per class + $21,446 (0.25 FTE Support)

$21,446 (0.25 FTE Support) $10,000 N/A

1 One non-school-based 218-day teacher FTE (salary + benefits) = $85,785 2Instructional period cost = $15,268 per period 3Total cost for speakers, microphone and camera

*Synchronous classes to be offered in the following languages and levels: American Sign Language Levels 1-4 Arabic Level 4 Chinese Levels 1-4 & AP German Levels 1-4 & AP Japanese Levels 1-4 & AP Korean Levels 1-4 Latin Levels 1-4 & AP Russian Levels 1-4 & AP

Total 34 classes

**FCPS Online classes to be offered in the following languages and levels: American Sign Language Levels 1-4 Arabic Level 4 (Virtual VA offers Arabic 1-3) Chinese Levels AP (Virtual VA offers Chinese 1-4 German Levels 1-4 & AP Japanese Levels 1-4 & AP Russian Levels 1-4 & AP Total 21 classes


Section 3: Internationalization In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education established its first major international strategy. In Succeeding Globally Through International Education and Engagement, U.S. Department of Education International Strategy 2012-2016, Objective 1 is to increase the global competencies of all U.S. students, including those from traditionally disadvantaged groups (Education, 2012).. The report cites the Global Competence Task Force, formed and led by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Asia Society, in their definition of global competencies. They define global competencies as the knowledge and skills to investigate the world beyond their immediate environment, recognize their own and others’ perspectives, communicate their ideas effectively with diverse audiences, and translate their ideas into appropriate or 21st century skills applied to the world. The Department of Education integrates these global competencies in three areas: implementation of internationally benchmarked, college-and career standards; the development of knowledge and understanding about the world, and world language acquisition and expertise (Education, 2012). The strategy further asserts that while students at all levels from elementary to postsecondary can gain this knowledge by studying the arts, civics, geography, history, and foreign languages, opportunities for study and research abroad can deepen this understanding and global perspective. In FCPS, Student Achievement Sub-Goals 1.2 and 1.4 state that students will communicate in at least two languages and understand the interrelationship and interdependence of the countries and cultures of the world. Developing and expanding international opportunities for students and teachers, both in person and virtually, can support achievement of these goals. A major question for FCPS is: How do we achieve equity in providing access and opportunity for all our students to develop global competencies through international experiences? Not all students will be able to travel with an international exchange opportunity. Therefore, there need to be other ways to provide this rich experience. In order to provide division-wide access, there are four options listed below that reach students in different ways.

Recommendation K: Expand Student International Experiences Numerous international experiences are currently available to FCPS students through division wide, school based, or individual student offerings. These offerings align with the objectives of both FCPS and the U.S. Department of Education.

• Student short term international and service learning travel experiences

Beginning in the 2012-2013 school year, FCPS established the tuition-based division-wide International Study Travel Program (ISTP) which provides students (and staff) with meaningful global experiences to develop 21st century skills. Student travel opportunities are available to elementary, middle, and high school students. In 2012-2013, 105 students participated in the ISTP. Six scholarships were awarded to students (based on financial need) who otherwise would not have been able to participate. The ISTP was expanded in the 2013-2014 school year to include the FCPS International Service Learning Program (ISLP). The ISLP is a division-wide tuition-based opportunity connected to service learning in FCPS for middle and high school students.


http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/international-strategy-2012-16.pdf

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/international-strategy-2012-16.pdf

In 2013-2014, 257 students, including 13 on scholarship, will participate in these opportunities. With each travel program, a percentage of tuition-free (scholarship) trips are offered to students on free or reduced lunch. The FCPS ISTP and ISLP are aligned with and support the FCPS curriculum. ISTP and ISLP opportunities related to science, career and technical education, social studies, and language immersion have been identified through 2017 and will be promoted to parents of eligible FCPS students to allow time for financial planning for tuition.

• School-based exchanges and travel Individual schools and teachers arrange exchange opportunities for students. Exchange opportunities may be coordinated with schools in other countries that include homestays, time in classrooms, and travel time in the country. Schools organize a variety of exchanges for their school community. These include summer or vacation travel and are usually aligned with a particular curricular area such as a language class (e.g., French or Spanish).

• Individual student exchange, via exchange programs

FCPS students can apply for and travel with established exchange programs such as American Field Service (AFS) and Youth For Understanding (YFU). These experiences include service learning during school breaks, summer travel, semester or yearlong programs.

• International student visitors to FCPS

Students and teachers from other countries visit FCPS for a short visit as part of a more extensive experience in the United States. Often, time is spent with language immersion or world language students in a cultural exchange program.

Strengths:

• Provides an extension of FCPS curriculum which provides rich, global experiences. • Complements FCPS Student Achievement Goals. • Promotes international understanding and a respect for a variety of cultures. • Expands students’ knowledge about culture and history and the basis for different values and

beliefs. • Cultivates critical thinking and leadership skills. • Fosters ability of students to navigate new environments with confidence, maturity, and

flexibility. • Affords students opportunity to interact with other students in target language. • Creates some scholarship opportunities for students on free or reduced meals status.

Challenges: • Access for large numbers of students due to cost of some programs. • Recruitment of group leaders (FCPS teachers). • Alignment of travel dates with FCPS school year calendar. • Identification, selection and vetting of homestay families. • Location of and coordination with interested international groups and schools. • Promotion of all exchange opportunities to all students and families. • Creation of programs that provide academic credit.


Considerations for Implementation: To fully expand international study travel for FCPS students, it is necessary to explore more economical options for those students who cannot afford existing travel opportunities, including the identification of possible collaboration with other funding sources in order to provide grant opportunities or scholarships for student travel. Identifying additional approved FCPS exchange partners in other countries and increasing the number of school to school exchanges with approved FCPS exchange partners not only provides opportunity for more economical options for students, but also provides opportunity for a short term immersive school experience both abroad and as host in FCPS. An increase in the number of students going on individual exchanges with approved FCPS exchange partners provides families with the ability to explore possibilities that meet their individual educational needs. It is important for students to apply what they have learned from their international experiences upon return. The creation of protocols for follow up for students upon completion of the travel opportunities will provide a framework for the travel or exchange experience that align to Student Achievement Goals and the Portrait of a Graduate; expand global and international relationships and understanding between FCPS students and students from around the world; and extend the knowledge and learning opportunities gained upon students’ return. Increasing the number of international student travel opportunities and the ability to tie these experiences directly to the FCPS Program of Studies is important. International student travel opportunities, such as paid tuition and tuition-free trips; travel with existing exchange programs; school based trips; or international student visits; promote the School Board Goal of understanding the interrelationship and interdependence of countries and cultures of the world. Coordinating additional exchanges may take additional staff time and care needs to be given to the scheduling of international visits during school time so as not to reduce instructional time.

Implementation Plan:

2014-15

Develop a data collection mechanism to inventory all student international travel. Identify additional sources of international travel opportunities and explore the feasibility of adding them to existing FCPS international travel options for all students. Create a process for ongoing identification of student international travel opportunities.

2015-16

All students will be aware of international travel opportunities and their benefits, and international student opportunities will increase by 5%.

2016-17 International student opportunities will increase by 5%. 2017-18 International student opportunities will increase by 5%. 2018-19

At least 10% of graduating class will have participated in a student international experience abroad.

Recommendation K: Expand student international experiences.


Cost for Recommendation K: Non-School Based Positions1




0.25 FTE $21,446

$21,446 0 $21,446


Recommendation L: Increase Teacher International Experiences International experiences are currently available to FCPS teachers through division-wide, school-based, and other travel opportunities. These opportunities increase teachers’ awareness of other languages and cultures, and better prepare them as teachers of students from around the world in their classrooms.

• FCPS teacher international travel experiences Teachers travel to other countries to participate in cultural/educational exchanges. These experiences have ranged from short term to semester or yearlong visits. Current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreements have been established with two local governments in Korea and one in Taiwan. These have led to month long teacher exchanges for FCPS teachers to travel overseas and to host visiting teachers in their FCPS school at no cost to FCPS.

FCPS science and math teachers have hosted intern teachers from Korea, as part of an agreement with the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Fulbright Classroom Teacher Exchanges provide opportunities for teachers to participate in direct exchanges of positions with colleagues from other countries. Additional teacher exchange opportunities exist through organizations such as the Goethe Institute in Washington, D.C.

• International teacher visitors to FCPS

Individual schools or FCPS teachers arrange exchange opportunities for teachers to visit. Exchange opportunities may be arranged with schools in other countries that include homestays and time in classrooms. Visiting teachers from other countries visit FCPS for a short visit (full day or less) or longer, and do not always include a homestay.

Two week practicum opportunities exist where teachers from Incheon City, Korea spend time in FCPS schools as part of a longer teacher training program provided by Incheon City. Day visits, where educators from overseas learn about FCPS instructional best practices, occur on occasion.

Strengths:

• The experience of cultural exchange and educational ideas/practices. • Opportunity of FCPS students to interact with exchange teacher visiting FCPS. • Opportunity for many FCPS schools and staff to participate.


• Financial stipend in some programs paid by sponsoring country to FCPS host teachers participating.

• Costs are covered by host country (e.g., Korea and Taiwan) for some programs.

Challenges: • Recruiting participants for some of the exchanges. • Finding host teachers/schools to volunteer for exchange opportunity. • Locating housing, if home stays are requested by visiting teachers. • Funding varies and is based on each country/local government’s policies and budgets.

Considerations for Implementation:

Expand teacher exchanges/visits including month long exchanges, short term visits, IB teacher exchanges and Fulbright teacher opportunities to develop globally minded teaching staff. Identify and explore other grant opportunities such as the Hilton Teacher Treks Program administered by The Institute of International Education (IIE). The Hilton Teacher Treks Program offers elementary and secondary level teachers the opportunity to go abroad for 2-3 weeks, explore, and experience culture firsthand. Create a website or database to house all teacher exchange opportunities. This would create a ‘one stop shop’ with information for teachers on various international opportunities. Develop a plan to ensure all teachers are aware of and have access to international exchange opportunities. Opportunities exist to travel to other countries and to host international visitors, increasing opportunities to include more teachers.


2014-15

Develop mechanism to store teacher exchange opportunity information and a plan to promote exchange opportunities to increase teacher participation. Identify additional grant resources for teacher exchange opportunities.

2015-16 Pilot plan. Increase teacher international opportunities by 5%. 2016-17 Implement plan. Increase teacher international opportunities by 5%. 2017-18 Increase teacher international opportunities by 5%. 2018-19 Increase teacher international opportunities by 5%.

Recommendation L: Increase teacher international experiences.


Cost for Recommendation L: Non-School Based Positions1




0.25 FTE $21,446

$21,446 0 $21,446


Recommendation M: Expand Access to International Opportunities to all Students Through Technology and Community Resources

Technology tools exist for FCPS students and teachers to connect with individuals and groups inside and out of FCPS. These tools can provide both synchronous and asynchronous opportunities for students to interact with other classes/students around the world. This can range from language exchanges via technology to science and social studies projects across countries. Tying internationalization into current curricula, as well as current professional development for teachers, will provide opportunities for all students to participate. FCPS, with approximately 47% of students coming from a home where a language in addition to or other than English is spoken, is a county rich in international resources. Opportunities that promote internationalization exist through connecting families to families and students to students for inter-cultural experiences. By connecting that cultural capital to the curriculum, students’ engagement and connections to their learning will increase.

• Technology is available that would allow for synchronous and asynchronous options for FCPS students and teachers to communicate and collaborate with classrooms around the world. The approved technologies include, but are not limited to, the following tools that support live group/virtual class discussions:

o Skype o Google+ ; Google+ Hangouts; and Google+ Hangouts on Air (available to teachers) o Blackboard Collaborate o YouTube Teacher Channels o Audio/Video Recording Options o Pre-recorded Virtual Field Trips o Group/Virtual Classroom Discussions

• International Nights/Heritage events are held at the schools throughout the division

Strengths:

• Technology exists in the schools and division to support this academic activity. • Professional development for using technology already exists. • Engagement with students is very high when working with technology. • Direct connections are made to student achievement goals and a wide variety of curricula. • Staff exists to support international class engagement through the use of technology, including

School Based Technology Specialists (SBTS) .


• The ability to expand internationalization goals to many students, via technology exists. • Cultural exchanges can occur without having to leave the school. • Schools already have the relatively low cost technology infrastructure. • The large international community in FCPS student population provides cultural capital. • Many schools host international nights/heritage nights.

Challenges: • Schedules due to time difference between FCPS and other countries • Teacher familiarity of and training on use of new technology • Equity of technology in schools • Costs for new and additional technologies • Bandwidth issues during high use testing periods and other times of year • Investigation of technical requirements and data security issues • Determination of level of monitoring student-to-student interactions • Use of instructional time, especially with global time differences for synchronous work. • Encouraging general school population to participate in international events, family to family,

and student to student connections


Using the FCPS Program of Studies, embed international connections with technology. Some examples of this would be: in 7th grade history, debate U.S. entry into World War II with students in France; during the Global Awareness Technology Project in 5th grade, partner with students in the country being researched; in high school biology, conduct observations of living organisms in a local body of water, and compare with samples taken in another country.

Awareness and implementation of technology currently available in FCPS (like ePALS and Face to Faith) that facilitate connections between FCPS and international students must be built among administrators and teachers. For example:

• ePals Global Classroom allows teachers to create real world, culturally-enriching learning experiences for their students. With ePals classroom matching, a high school class studying Chinese can connect with a class studying English in China, or the classes can work on a special project together.

• Face to Faith connects students 12-17 years old worldwide via a secure website where they interact. This non-religiously affiliated program, funded by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s foundation, features facilitated videoconferences where students discuss global issues from a variety of perspectives.

Exploring ways to increase family to family and student to student cultural exchanges beyond international nights/heritage events makes is possible to fully leverage the cultural assets of FCPS students and families to enhance the curriculum. For example, many of FCPS students travel to their

Recommendation M: Expand access to international opportunities to all students through technology and community resources.


home country or home country of relatives for extended stays. These student experiences could provide the basis for comparing and contrasting environmental stewardship, technology, community sustainability, government, and business between the countries visited, the United States, and Fairfax.


2014-15

Investigate technology possibilities and curriculum connections. Inventory how schools collaborate with the cultural resources within their community for internationalization.

2015-16

Develop and pilot test resources and a framework for all schools that provide them with the tools necessary to tie the curriculum with the technology. Increase number of schools working with the cultural resources within their community to equal 25% of all schools.

2016-17

Expand pilot use of technology to schools in an IB pyramid. Increase number of schools working with the cultural resources within their community to equal 50% of all schools.

2017-18

Expand pilot use of technology to at least one additional school at each level in each pyramid. Increase number of schools working with the cultural resources within their community to equal 75% of all schools.

2018-19

Embedded through existing professional development, provide all schools access to the tools needed to replicate the best practices from the pilot. Increase number of schools working with the cultural resources within their community to equal 100% of all schools.

Cost for Recommendation M: Non-School Based Positions1




0.25 FTE $21,446

$21,446 $10,000 $31,446


Recommendation N: Expand Collaboration with Embassies and International Businesses FCPS maintains relationships with embassies in the Washington DC area through collaborative professional development projects, grants, and support in establishing and maintaining language and cultural programs. FCPS Business and Community Partners work with individual schools and the school division to contribute money and valued goods through partnerships and direct donations. Several of these partners maintain international ties.

• FCPS maintains relationships with the embassies of France, Italy, Korea, Spain, and Thailand for

the following purposes: o to promote deeper understanding of language and culture; o to provide funding for language development.

• Most schools have at least one business partner, some with international offices. • Many volunteers from the business partner take part in school activities.


Strengths:

• Many of these relationships, both business partners and embassies, have been longstanding. • Common goals exist between FCPS and embassy community outreach. • Students and teachers have access to the country through the embassy without leaving US. • Strong ties already exist within the business community in Fairfax County. • Most schools have a business partner and relationship is mutually beneficial for business partner

and school community. • The proximity of FCPS to embassies, businesses, and U.S. Department of State provide

opportunities. • There are numerous natural resources for experiences tied to cultures, education, and

languages. • There are mutual benefits for FCPS, embassies, and state department outreach efforts.

Challenges: • A need exists for a point person in FCPS to be the contact for embassies, and staff time to locate

and create partnerships with new international business partners. • There is a need for embassies and businesses to demonstrate the same level of interest in

establishing a purposeful connection to internationalization goals. • A process is needed to identify additional businesses to include international associations and

companies located in Fairfax County with international ties. • There are inequalities in access to business, embassy and state department partners across the

division for all schools regardless of geographical proximity to schools within the county.


Expanding collaborative relationships with embassies, the international business community, associations and the U.S. Department of State requires clarifying priorities to increase mutual understanding of benefits. FCPS can develop protocol for embassy visits through the embassy educational attaché; promote visits to schools by embassy representatives with purposes tied to the FCPS Program of Studies and Student Achievement Goals; arrange cultural visits to embassies; identify appropriate contacts for the U.S. Department of State and associations and other international businesses in Fairfax County for county-wide partnerships. An additional means to build FCPS capacity to prepare students to be global citizens is to collaborate with businesses, associations, embassies and U.S. Department of State contacts to share staff expertise and career experiences with students in FCPS. Further investigation into potential student internships, domestic and international, with embassies, businesses and the U.S. Department of State is needed, as is the possibility of partnering with business to host teachers for site visits.

Recommendation N: Expand collaborative relationships with embassies and international businesses.



2014-15

Gather feedback and redefine existing relationships with embassies, businesses, associations, and the US State Department that match their needs and those of FCPS program of studies and language groups represented within the FCPS community.

2015-16 Pilot new relationship with one matching school in each region. 2016-17 Increase participation by two schools in each region. 2017-18 Increase participation by two schools in each region. 2018-19

Embedded through existing professional development, provide all schools with the tools needed to utilize the best practices from the pilot to establish and maintain relationships with embassies, the international business community and associations, and the US State Department. Increase participation by two schools in each region.

Cost for Recommendation N: Non-School Based Positions1




0.25FTE $21,446

$21,446 0 $21,446



Section 3: Internationalization Recommendations Summary Recommendation K: Expand student international experiences. Recommendation L: Increase teacher international experiences. Recommendation M: Expand access to international opportunities to all students through technology and community resources. Recommendation N: Expand collaborative relationships with embassies and international businesses.


Internationalization Recommendations Cost Chart


Recommendation K Recommendation L Recommendation

M Recommendation N

Option Type/ Description

Expand Student International Experiences

Increase Teacher International Experiences

Expand Access to International Opportunities to all Students through Technology and Community Resources

Expand Collaboration with Embassies and International Businesses


0.25FTE1 $21,446

0.25FTE1 $21,446

0.25FTE1 $21,446

0.25FTE1 $21,446

Salary and Benefits $21,446 $21,446 $21,446 $21,446


0 0 $10,000 0

Total annual Recurring Cost

$21,446 $21,446 $31,446 $21,446


Appendix A: World Languages/Internationalization Working Group Sloan Presidio

World Languages/Internationalization Working Group Sponsor Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Services Department (ISD)

Teddi Predaris1 World Languages/Internationalization Working Group Chair Director, Office of Language Acquisition and Title I, ISD

Meriem Bacha FLES Teacher Beech Tree Elementary School

Ingrid Badia Resource Teacher World Languages, Instructional Services Department

Jean Bender Dual Language Specialist Instructional Services Department

Lou Ellen Brademan Manager School Support, Instructional Services Department

Walt Carlson

Community Representative

Chad Clayton

Specialist Special Education, Department of Special Services (DSS)

Lori Cleveland Principal Greenbriar West Elementary School (FLES school)

Karen Corbett Sanders

Community Representative

Katie Han Resource Teacher World Languages, Instructional Services Department

Stephanie Holt Specialist Career and Technical Education (CTE), Instructional Services Department

Lidi Hruda Evaluator Professional Learning and Accountability (PLA)

Gregory Jones2 Coordinator World Languages, Instructional Services Department

Sam Klein3 Coordinator PreK-12 ESOL, Instructional Services Department

Sandy Knox Community Representative

Kathryn Manoatl Principal, Dranesville Elementary School FAESP Representative

Amy Beth Marta Director, Student Services Key Middle School

Tina Meek Community Representative

Paulina Nicopoulos

Specialist Adult and Community Education (ACE), Instructional Services Department

Christina Oh Specialist World Languages, Instructional Services Department

Roberto Pamas Principal, Holmes Middle School MSPA Representative

Jason Pensler Principal Orange Hunt Elementary School (Immersion School)

Chris Powell Specialist Advanced Academic Programs, Instructional Services Department


Rebecca Prell Secondary World Languages Teacher McLean High School

Beatrix Preusse-Burr Specialist World Languages, Instructional Services Department

Alice Reilly Coordinator Social Studies, Instructional Services Department

Ellen Reilly Principal, McLean HS HSPA Representative

Charley Sabatier Specialist Science, Instructional Services Department

Gwenanne Salkind Specialist Mathematics, Instructional Services Department

Judy Santucci Specialist Language Arts, Instructional Services Department

Rick Stegman Specialist Technology, Instructional Services Department

Douglas Tyson Assistant Superintendent Cluster 3

Laura Wagner Immersion Teacher Bailey’s Elementary School

Karin Williams Director Operations and Strategic Planning, Instructional Services Department

Diego Wilson Administrator Fairfax Academy

Fabio Zuluaga Assistant Superintendent Cluster 8

1Elementary Models Subcommittee Chair 2K-12 Vertical Articulation Subcommittee Chair 3Internationalization Subcommittee Chair


Appendix B: FCPS Immersion Data

Bailey’s Elementary School MATH (Grades 3 to 5 Combined)

READING (Grades 3 to 5 Combined)

*Bailey’s elementary school serves grades K to 5.

**n represents number of students who were pass/proficient or pass/advanced.


SCIENCE (Grades 3 & 5 Combined)

SOCIAL STUDIES (Grades 3 & 4 Combined)

*Bailey’s elementary school serves grades K to 5.

**n represents number of students who were pass/proficient or pass/advanced.


Fort Hunt Elementary School MATH (Grades 3 to 6 Combined)


*n represents number of students who were pass/proficient or pass/advanced.



SOCIAL STUDIES (Grades 3, 4 & 6 Combined)



Fox Mill Elementary School

MATH (Grades 3 to 6 Combined)




Great Falls Elementary School





Herndon Elementary School





Kent Gardens Elementary School





Lake Anne Elementary School





Laurel Ridge Elementary School





London Towne Elementary School





Orange Hunt Elementary School MATH (Grades 3 to 6 Combined)




Ravensworth Elementary School





Rose Hill Elementary School MATH (Grades 3 to 6 Combined)




Appendix C: Reference List Abbott, M., Caccavale, T. S., & Stewart, K. (2007, Fall). Cognitive Benefits of Learning Language. Duke

Gifted Letter, 8(1). Retrieved May 14, 2014, from ACTFL American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages: http://www.actfl.org/advocacy/discover-languages/for-parents/cognitive

The Duke University Talent Identification Program interviewed several experts in the field about the cognitive benefits of learning languages. The experts cite research that support starting foreign language instruction at an early age. According to the experts, starting foreign language at an early age sets the stage for students to develop advanced levels of one or more languages; enhances cognitive development; increases critical thinking, creativity, and flexibility in young children.

Abdul-alim, J. (2013, April 3). Elementary Pupils Immersed In Foreign Language. Retrieved May 14, 2014 from Education Week: 11/30/13.

The author examines programs funded under the statewide World Languages Expansion Initiative in Delaware. Delaware’s immersion initiative introduces students to a foreign language at an early age when researchers say children’s brains are most receptive to acquiring language and enabling them to speak the language fluently.

ACTFL. (2013). Q & A Interview with Rosetta Stone CEO Steve Swad. The Language Educator

(November 2013), 18-20.

This article is a candid interview between ACTFL Executive director, Marty Abbot and Rosetta Stone CEO Steve Swad. During the interview, Steve Swad states "Our intention is to be a catalyst for learning language. We're no replacement for going through a complete classroom learning experience with a great teacher, or even spending a few years in a foreign country."

Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual Language Instruction A Handbook for Enriched Education. Boston, MA, USA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.

This book, written by leaders in immersion education, includes chapters on foundations, models, critical features, program development, oral language development, teaching literacy in two languages, and assessement. Also included are model lessons and assessment procedures.

Collier, V. P. (1992, Winter/Spring). A Synthesis of Studies Examining Long-Term Language Minority Student Data on Academic Achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16 (1 & 2), 187-212. Retrieved November 12, 2013.

This article provides a research synthesis of studies examining language minority students’ academic achievement over a period of four or more years. The focus of the article is the use of a minority language for instructional purposes. Findings confirm that the greater the amount of first language instructional support for language-minority students, combined with balanced second language support, the higher they are able to achieve academically in the second language in each suceeding academic year, as compared to matched groups being schooled monlingually in the second language.


Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2004, Winter). The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language

Education for All. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2:1, 2-20.

Researchers Collier and Thomas present their longitudinal research findings from two way dual language enrichment models. Their findings demonstrate the substantial power of this program for enhancing student outcomes and fully closing the achievement gap in second language. They have found that this is the only program for English learners that fully closes the gap.

Cummins, J. (1981). The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students. In California State Department of Education (ED.) Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework.

In this landmark research paper, the author presents research and findings on the nature of language proficiency and its relationship to academic and cognitive development, the origins of current misconceptions about bilingualism and a theoretical position regarding the nature of bilingual proficiency, and the application of the theoretical positions to the rationale for bilingual proficiency. In his conclusions, the author suggests that achievement in English literacy skills is strongly related to the extent of development of first language literacy skills.

Curtain, H. I., Dahlberg, C., & Pesola, C. (2009). Languages and Children: Making the Match, New Languages for Young Learners, Grades K-8 . Boston: Pearson.

The authors focus on communicative language teaching as it reflects cognitive and second language acquistion theory in presenting strategies and activities for instruction. Topics covered include differentiated instruction, best practices in assessment, classroom examples, a framework for curriculum planning, Understanding by Design, and two way immersion.

Department of State (2009). Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent Foreign Language Shortfalls. Washington DC: United States Government Accountability Office.

The U.S. Department of State faces foreign language shortfalls of staff with adequate literacy skills in the target language in regions of strategic interest, despite recruitment efforts. Proficiency in foreign languages is a key skill for U.S. diplomats in their efforts to advance U.S. interests overseas. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined the extent to which the Department of State is meeting its foreign language requirements. Their findings are described in this report.

Duncan, A., & Gil, L. (2014, February 19). English learners an asset for global, multilingual future: Arne Duncan and Libia Gil. Los Angeles Daily News. Los Angeles, CA, USA.

In this article, Duncan and Gil state that a world class education today means learning to speak, read, and write in languages other than English. They further assert that encouraging mastery of multiple languages has long been important to America's competitiveness.


Education, U. D. (2012). Succeeding Globally Through International Education and Engagement. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.

The U.S. Department of Education, in its first ever fully articulated international strategy stresses the necessity of a world-class education for all students; global competencies for all students; international benchmarking and applying lessons learned from other countries, and education; diplomacy, and engagement with other countries. The strategy will be used to guide the Department's activities and allocation of resources to reflect the highest priority and most strategic topics, parts of the world, and activities. They state that students gain global competencies not only by studying the arts, civics, geography, history, and foreign languages, but through opportunities for study and research abroad.

Fairfax County Public Schools Office of Program Evaluation. (2014). Foreign Language in the Elmentary

School (FLES) Final Evaluation Findings. Fairfax: Fairfax County Public Schools.

The FCPS FLES program model was examined from SY 2008-09 through SY2012-13. The FLES final evaluation findings conclude that the FLES program model is well-defined with clearly documented primary activities and performance expectations. The majority of FLES students meet expected speaking and writing benchmarks in the target language. Performance on the SOL assessments was the same for FLES students overall and better for students with disabilities than a matched comparison group.

Fairfax County Public Schools, & George Mason University. (1991). Partial-Immersion Foreign Language Pilot Program Evaluation Report Second Language, Second Nature. Falls Church: Fairfax County Public Schools.

Overall, the students participating in the immersion program have scored at least as well, and to some extent, better than comparable FCPS students who were not in the program. There is no evidence that the students' academic and cognitive development has been slowed in any way by their immersion experience. In fact, there is some evidence, at times significant evidence, that their performance in English and in the content areas has been enhanced during the past two years when compared to non-participating students of similar ability and characteristics.

Fairfax County Public Schools. (2008). Two-Way Immersion Final Evaluation Report. Fairfax County

Public Schools.

The Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) Two-Way Immersion (TWI) program began during the 2002-2003 school year with four basic goals: start students on the road to proficiency and literacy in two languages, make students sensitive to other cultures, establish a framework for children to learn from one another, and enrich the entire school by involving parents who might not have had a role. Evaluation results indicate that students in the TWI program performed at or above the level of traditional kindergarten students on end of year English assessments, former TWI students outperform their traditional counterparts in reaching reading benchmarks in the primary grades, and participation appears to narrow the gap between native Spanish and native English speakers on division achievement assessments.


Fortune, T. W. (n.d.). What Research Says About Immersion. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from CARLA Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquistion: http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/documents/ImmersionResearch_TaraFortune.html

The author outlines key findings for both benefits and challenges in immersion education. Benefits of immersion education were found in the areas of academic performance, language and literacy skills, cognitive skill development, and economic competitiveness in a global society. The author describes some challenges that program administrators should consider when planning an immersion program such as staffing, curriculum development, and program articulation.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-Based Instruction: Research Foundations. Retrieved May 6,

2014, from www.carla.umn.edu: http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/grabe_stoller1997/READING1/foundation.htm

In this article, the authors examine the effectiveness of different types of content-based classrooms and programs. They conclude that content-based instruction (CBI) is a "powerful innovation in language teaching across a wide range of instructional contexts". The author cites some benefits of CBI, among others as: students are exposed to a considerable amount of language as they learn content; students are taught useful language that is embedded with relevant discourse versus isolated language fragments; students have more opportunity to use the content knowledge; and CBI increases student motivation and supports cooperative learning and project based learning.

Grosjean PH.D, F. (2014, 1 8). Cognitive Advantages of Second Langauge Immersion Education, in Life as a Bilingual. Psychology Today. Retrieved May 15, 2014, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201401/cognitive-advantages-second-language-immersion-education

The author examined whether children in immersion programs show the same kind of advantages in cognitive skills, such as metalinguistic control and executive control, as children who are not bilingual. Metalinguistic awareness is the explicit knowledge of the different aspects of language (sounds, words, syntax, etc.) and their capacity to talk about these properties. Executive control or functioning is a set of complex cognitive processes that include attention, inhibition, monitoring, selection, and planning, Executive control has three core aspects: inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. Findings were positive in that for most of the tasks, students in immersion programs outperformed their monolingual counterparts.

Izadi, E. (2014, April 30). Bilingualism Can Help Close Learning Gaps for Immigrant Students. National Journal. Retrieved from http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/early-childhood/bilingualism-can-help-close-learning-gaps-for-immigrant-students-20140430

In a review of the research, the author cites studies which confirm that the brain gains cognitive benefits from being bilingual regardless of one's socioeconomic status. Evidence suggests that while students from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds tend to perform worse than wealthier


students on executive functioning measures, bilingualism appears to help compensate for that gap.

Lanker, A., & Rhodes, N. (2007). Foreign Language Immersion Programs Features and Trends Over 35 Years. Retrieved November 4, 2013, from CAL Digests: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/foreign-language-immersion-programs.html

The authors examine foreign language programs as they have evolved over the past 35 years. They examine data, program models, and trends. Findings indicate that foreign language immersion is a highly successful approach to language instruction for children which enriches their English language development, provides them with an enhanced sense of global awareness and linguistic confidence, and learning strategies that may be useful in many aspects of life.

Large Countywide and Suburban District Consortium. (2014, January). 21st Century Education Accountability: Recommendations for a New Federal Framework.

Members of the Large Countywide and Suburban District Consortium represent a growing group of large, highly diverse, successful school districts representing states across the country. They worked together to develop recommendations for six focus areas for a proposed new accountability framework. The first is to establish 21st century outcomes as the goals of all major education laws and policies. Included in this recommendation is the need to have ability and fluency in more than one language.

Litinov, A. (2008, October). Finding Our Way With Words. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from NEA National Education Associatioin: mhtml:file://M:\Publications\Language policy\NEA-Finding Our Way WIth Words:mht

This article presents an argument for expanding foreign language instruction in schools to prepare students for the global society in which they live. Several program models are examined, including the Chinese program at Fairhill Elementary School, Fairfax County Public Schools.

Nielson, K., & Freynik, S. (2008)/ Rosetta Stone Version 3 Falls Short of Manufacturer's Claims. University of Maryland from http://www.casl.umd.edu/node/919

The authors conclude that Rosetta Stone Version 3 software might be a useful tool to supplement vocabulary acquisition in a more well-rounded language course, but "as a stand-alone package Rosetta Stone is unlikely to be the solution to the U.S. Government's language needs".

Nielson, K., Doughty, C., & Freynik, S. (2008). Final Technical Report E.3.2 Rosetta Stone Findings. University of Maryland. Retrieved from http://www.casl.umd.edu/sites/default/files/Nielson08_RosettaStoneFindings.pdf

This report discusses self-study with Rosetta Stone in U.S. Government Agencies. The authors review manufacturer’s classification of the Rosetta Stone environment as "dynamic immersion.” The authors found Rosetta Stone "quite impoverished" in comparison to rich immersion environments. Vocabulary is limited to the surrounding images viewed; feedback is provided as


"right or wrong" with no overt correction of a specific error; and the structure "impels learners to make guesses as to how to match language input to images". The authors generally found claims regarding Rosetta Stone to be overstated in light of their implementation of the four principals of language acquisition: learning sequences, rich input, problem-solving, and acquiring communication skills.

Myers, A. (2014, March 25). Students learning English benefit more in two-language instructional programs than English immersion, Stanford research finds. Stanford Report. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/teaching-english-language-032514.html?view=...

Researchers at Stanford Graduate School of Education and the San Francisco Unified School District examined student performance in various types of English-language learning programs. Their findings indicate that by middle school, students in the two-language programs scored substantially above students in the English only programs on a range of metrics, including English language arts.

Pascopella, A. (2013, November). Utah's Languages of Opportunity. District Administration. Utah. Retrieved from 222.DistrictAdministration.com

Utah is emerging as a national trendsetter in dual language immersion. The dual language immersion program originates from the state recognizing that to be competitive in the global economy, literacy in a world language is essential. This article provides historical background beginning with program inception in 2008 under former Governor Jon Huntsman as well as detailed program descriptions.

Ruiz, T. (n.d.). Integrating Content and Language. Language Magazine. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=47991

The author defines content and integrated language learning as an approach for learning content through an additional language (foreign or second). Both the subject and language are taught. In this method, students develop immediate competence building which enables students to use the language as they learn. Thinking skills are engaged from the beginning, flexibility of the mind is enhanced, and students develop their problem solving skills.

The Languages of Business. (2011, August 5). Bloomberg Rankings. Retrieved 2014, from http://liberalarts.iupui.edu/wlac/uploads/docs/Blooomberg_Rankings_Business_languages.pdf

Languages, other than English, that are most useful for conducting business around the world were rank ordered. To derive rankings, the researchers first identified the 25 languages with the greatest number of native speakers, then narrowed the list to the 11 that are official languages of G20 countries. (Countries where English is the official language, or one of multiple official languages, were excluded.) Statistics were compiled from countries where each language is official. In countries with multiple official languages, statistics were included for each language. For example, Switzerland's data were included for its three official languages: German, French and Italian.


Web of World Languages. (2011). Language Magazine, 2713. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=2713

This article reviews online language learning programs. The reviewers conclude that Middlebury Interactive Languages is a way to supplement an existing language program.


report of the world languages/ …...work of the world languages/internationalization working group...

Documents