Using FLES History to Plan for the Present and Future

Audrey L. Heining-Boynton University of North Carolina

ABSTRACT Alltoo ofen in education “new” programs are planned without thoroughly in- vestigating what was done in the past. By ex- amining earlier FLES efforts, curriculum plan- ners can put to good use what was learned from FLES of the fgties andsixties.

This articles looks at the history of FLES in the United States. Besides the usually-quoted reasons of I ) lack of money, 2) return to the basics, and 3) xenophobia on thepart of Ameri- cans, six other important and recurring reasons for the decline of FLES in the fgties and sixties are q l o r e d Based on these reasons, a checklist has been developed for new and existing pro- grams to use as a means of self evaluation.

Now that we are into the nineties, many school districts and states across the country are com- mitting once again to the notion of early foreign language study. For example, North Carolina will have well over one thousand new FLES teachers and hundreds of new programs by 1993; in 1990, Michigan will have available $1.3 million for school districts to create new or to enrich ex- isting elementary and middle school foreign language offerings. 1 Knowledge of what has been done in the past can be very helpful when planning for today and tomorrow.

Recently, nearly one hundred practicing FLES teachers were asked the question, “Why did FLES decline in the fifties and sixties?”* The

AudreyL.. Heining-Boynton ( Ph.D., Michigan State UNver- sity) is Assistant Professor of Education and Romance Languages at the UNversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

usual answer was “lack of funds.” Other answers such as “return to the basics” and “xenophobia on the part of Americans” were also mentioned. What were the reasons for the decline of FLES programs several decades ago? Can those reasons be helpful for program planning and evaluation today?

The purpose of this article is to examine the history of FLES in the United States, and to suggest a program evaluation checklist based on the data from earlier FLES endeavors (see Appendix A). The checklist can be used by current FLES practitioners and administrators as a quick way to evaluate whether their FLES program has utilized what has been learned from past elementary school foreign language efforts.

History of FLES %aching children foreign languages is not a

novel idea; Kelly (27) reminds us that written evidence of FLES appears as early as the fist century A.D. Throughout the ages, foreign lan- guages have been an integral part of the liberal arts education curriculum for children.

In the United States, for example, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Latin and Greek were a part of a youngster’s educational program. Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of instruction in modern foreign languages, and Benjamin Franklin believed that studying the an- cient languages should be preceded by a study of modern languages (Kelly, 27).

Because of the large concentration of German immigrants, German was offered in some

Foreign Language Annals, 23, No. 6,1990 503

504 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - DECEMBER 1990

schools beginning in the nineteenth century, and those programs eventually became the most numerous. By the outbreak of World War I, though, national sentiment toward foreign languages was very negative, especially toward German (Kelly, 27).

After World War 11, there was a resurgence of foreign language study, many say in part due to the Russians’ orbiting of Sputnik. Mildenberger (38) reported that in 1956 at least 271,617 elemen- tary public-school students in kindergarten through grade six were studying a foreign lan- guage. Spanish had the largest number of stu- dents, with French and German placing sec- ond and third. Catholic schools reported 156,000 elementary school children studying a foreign language with French leading the list, followed by Polish, Italian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Spa- nish and Latin. Mildenberger recognized that his figures were not absolutely accurate since his study was not exhaustive and not all question- naires were returned.

The National Defense Education Act of 1958 provided funding for the training of foreign lan- guage teachers, and all language programs, in- cluding FLES, grew (McLaughlin, 34, p. 134). By 1960, all fifty states had FLES, and 1,227,000 pupils were enrolled in an elementary school foreign language program in 8,OOO elementary schools (Andersson, 4, p. 101). By the end of the sixties, however, few FLES programs remained.

Many worthwhile programs in our schools have been discontinued when grant monies have no longer been available, or when school districts have diverted or cut funds. Also, a “return to the basics” and American xenophobia have ended prematurely a number of creative educational endeavors. FLES programs have not been im- mune to these realities. Although generalizing is always difficult since each school district’s set of circumstances is unique, it is still possible to observe recurring themes, conditions, and trends that were common to FLES programs of the fif- ties and sixties. From an analysis and synthesis of the research, six reasons beyond the issues of money, changes in curricular priorities, and con- tempt for that which is foreign emerge as causes for the disappearance of FLES. They are: 1) lack of qualified teachers; 2) unrealistic and/or inap- propriate goals and objectives; 3) incompatible

pedagogy; 4) lack of articulation; 5) lack of homework, grades, and evaluation; 6) lack of parent support. 3 Each of these will be dealt with individually.

Lack of Qualified Teachers In the 195Os, FLES teachers were either travel-

ing specialists, classroom teachers, college stu- dents, parents and other citizens, native speakers from the community, superintendents, or prin- cipals. The specialist may have had native or near-native fluency, but had little knowledge of how to teach children. Certified teachers were prepared in elementary school pedagogy, but for the most part were deficient in the foreign lan- guage (Andersson, 4, p. 99, Lipton, 33). For ex- ample, three hundred teachers were surveyed in the early sixties. Some teachers had high-school foreign language instruction, others had college instruction and/or experiences abroad. Only seventeen percent of the three hundred were able to both to read and speak a foreign language; only six had a college major or minor in a foreign language (Modern Foreign Language =aching in the Elementary Grades: A Feasibility Study, 39, pp. 46-49). In 1960, requirements for foreign language teachers were so lax that no state re- quired a teacher to be able to understand and speak the language he or she taught (Andersson, 4, p. 143).

Therefore, elementary school classroom teachers with little or no background were being called upon to provide instruction in a foreign language. They, in turn, resented the assignment, looking upon it as yet another task to be squeezed into an already crowded day. We know that teacher attitudes play a major role in student motivation and achievement (Izzo, 24; Savignon, 47). Many of these “drafted” FLES teachers were frustrated and angry. Their students picked up on these negative feelings. Some of these FLES teachers and their students grew to dislike foreign languages (Andersson, 4).

Unrealistic and/or Inappropriate Goals and Objectives

As we examine the goals and objectives of FLES programs of the fifties and sixties, we discover that they were usually vague, unrealistic, and/or inappropriate, if they existed at all

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - DECEMBER 19%) 505

(Alkonis and Brophy, 1; Curtain and Pesola, 11; Rhodes and Schreibstein, 46, Lipton, 33). One public school in 1%8 had the following goals for a first year FLES program: (a) to demonstrate the ability to use audio-lingual skills; (b) to demonstrate the ability to use the foreign lan- guage; (c) to understand the essential sameness of man; (d) to understand the diverse influences that countries and cultures have upon the world (Fisher, 20, pp. 34-39). The preceding goals are worthwhile and age-level appropriate, but for the amount of time spent on instruction, they were also unrealistic.

In the spring of 1%1, researchers visited sixty- two reportedly good FLES programs. Below are some of the conclusions concerning goals and objectives:

1) A majority of the FLES programs visited did not fulfill the primary aim of the program, that is, teaching the four language skills, even when this was clearly stated as their objective. 2) Many programs emphasized such aims as “world understanding” or “broadened horizons” to the extent that they were clearly not language programs. 3) FLES teachers perceived language as isolated lists of words, yet stated that a pro- gram goal was that the child would be able to use the language (Alkonis and Brophy, 1. pp.

Even if some goals were appropriate or realistic, many times they were not achieved. For example, Spaar (49) discovered that a goal of the children was to learn to express orally things that were meaningful. Insufficient time spent on in- struction combined with poor teaching pro- hibited achievement of this objective.

213-217).

Incompatible Pedagogy Teachers and methodologists did not take

children’s learning styles into account when planning FLES classes (Lipton, 33). Creative children can and will tolerate only limited amounts of drill and repetition; some children are more problem oriented than others. Still others are more visually than auditorially in- clined (Ratte, 44). Yet, the audio-lingual method was considered the best method for teaching youngsters. The theory was that since a child’s first language is acquired through repetition of

words, a second language could be acquired in the same way. Several things, however, were not accounted for in this method, such as the bore- dom of excessive repetition and rote memorh- tion, and the effect of the cognitive development that had taken place since the native language ac- quisition had begun (McLaughlin, 35, pp. 203- 204). Many, if not most, of the students memo- rized the dialogues without knowing what they were saying. Most students could see no point in it. Also, even if the children knew what the dia- logues meant, there was a strong chance that they realized the artificial and simplistic nature of many of them (Spaar, 49).

It took many years to discover that exclusive use of the audio-lingual method was not the way to learn a foreign language, nor did it lead to stu- dent satisfaction (Spaar, 49, p. 60, Lipton, 33). The thought that children would be able to ex- tract dialogue lines and use them in a personal- ly meaningful conversation was an incorrect assumption (Spaar, 49).

Lack of Articulation Articulation can be defined as a gradual, se-

quential progression within and between levels in a given content area. It was observed by Aldonis and Brophy (1) and Curtain and Pesola (11) that many programs started with little or no planning which included planning for the eventual in- tegration with junior high and high school. Also, students strongly objected to the repetition, year after year, of the same concepts (Spaar, 49). Col- ors and numbers taught the same way five years in a row was neither cognitively challenging nor appropriate. The students could not observe any progress from one year to the next. Many had seven years or more of what they considered “level one” of the foreign language. When ar- ticulation provisions were not made in the junior high and/or high school, the FLES student was forced to repeat much, if not everything, he or she learned in elementary school. The student became disenchanted, disillusioned, and bored (SPaar, 49, P. 64).

Lack of Homework, Grades, and Evaluation Many educators once felt that it was virtual-

ly out of the question to assign homework in

506 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - DECEMBER 1990

FLES during the prereading years (Scherer, 48). Yet, as student remarks revealed, assigned tasks would have made an early foreign language ex- perience more credible in the minds of many students. Homework, as we know now, is con- sidered necessary for two reasons: 1) it reinforces the foreign language between class sessions and 2) it gives importance to the subject (Rhodes and Shreibstein, 46, p. 26).

Mchughlin (35, p. 138) wrote that after several years in the program, the average child who asso- ciated “real” learning with books and written exercises “tended to belittle the language class as frivolous and not worth serious effort.”

In most instances, foreign language ex- periences were not graded, yet students were con- stantly reminded by parents and teachers alike of the importance of grades. Students regarded their FLES classes as less important, and less worthy of their serious attention (Spaar, 49, p. 62). As we also know, grades give the student an in-

dication and evaluation, subjective as it may be, of progress. FLES students from the fifties and sixties remarked that they in many cases needed a sign that advancement was taking place (Spaar, 49).

Evaluation was discussed in the literature in terms of student achievement. One source listed four main ways to test whether objectives had been met: written tests created by the classroom teacher, oral tests, dialogue performance or a grade on classroom performance, and oral or written reports (Fisher, 20, p. 37). The emphasis of educators was on prediction of achievement, not on evaluating the “goodness” or “badness” of the programs themselves (Arendt, 5, pp. 15- 22). Program assessment by teachers, adminis- trators, parents, and children was not measured. FLES teacher effectiveness also went unevaluatd.

Lack of Parent Support Not only were the students disappointed with

FLES results, but parents as well believed that their children would and should be able to com- municate in the target language (Lipton, 33). Parents would ask their children to “say something in the foreign language.” The child would rattle off some utterances and the parent would ask, “What does that mean?” If the child was unable to answer (which was often the case),

the parents would conclude that the child did not know what he or she was saying (Spaar, 49). Educators would contradict by saying that it was not a question of knowing or not knowing the language. Rather, the child was incapable of translation since the second language was an in- dependent means of communication which had nothing to do with English (Scherer, 48).

Also, parents, as well as the teachers and stu- dents of the time, were unaware of the fact that one year of FLES did not equate to one year of foreign language study in the high school. The fifteen to twenty minutes daily was only about one third of the time that junior high and high school students were exposed to another language (Krashen, 28; Krashen, Long and Scarcella, 29). What was also not taken into ac- count in the fifties and sixties was that older children learn language more quickly because of their advanced cognitive development (Scherer, 48). In essence, parental displeasure was due to a lack of understanding of the goals and objec- tives of the program. And if program goals were nonexistent or inappropriat &...the vicious Circle was now complete.

Conclusions: Implications for the Present and Fhture

FLES advocates must be made aware of these earlier shortcomings. For example, teacher train- ing institutions need to develop specific curricula with high standards for preparing the FLES teacher. Classroom materials and curricula must be created that are meaningful and appropriate to the cognitive level of the child. karning style preferences of the children should be consided. Horizontal and vertical articulation must be planned from the inception of a program. A pro- gram’s goals and objectives must be realistic. Provisions for periodic student and program evaluation must be incorporated; parental sup port must be enlisted.

FLES has been growing rapidly in the past decade. State mandates, requirements, and grant support are making early foreign language study once again available across the country. People currently involved with FLES must be aware of the historical issues and concerns. The future will be challenging enough without retracing missteps of the past.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - DECEMBER 1990 507

NOTES Other examples of recent increases in state involve-

ment with FLES can be found in Margaret Clark’s article “State Involvement in FLES Increases” in the Spring 1988 issue of FLESNews.

* %achers were polled at three FLES workshops and one state foreign language association meeting.

This list comes in the form of a synthesis of many authors’ works. Some contributors such as Donoghue (12,131, Dunkel and Pillet (19, h s o n (31,32), and Stern (50,51,52) describe earlier FLES offerings; these and others are included in the References to give the reader a flavor of FLES past. Researchers such as Spaar (49), McLaughlin (34, 33, and Alkonis and Brophy (1) described existing conditions and reported on FLES program evaluations that they conducted. Failure of programs raises complex questions that do not necessarily merit simple answers. The author of this article, therefore, recognizes a possible limitation of this study to be an oversimplified interpretation of the data.

* Some programs met less than 30 minutes weekly.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

REFERENCES Alkonis, Nancy V. and Mary A. Brophy. “A Survey of FLES Practices.” Reports of Surveys and Studies in the Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages, 1959-1961. New York The Modem Language Association, 1961. American Attitudes Toward Foreign Languages and Foreign Culturn. Ed. by Edward Dudley and Peter Heller. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann, 1983. Andersson, Theodore. The Teaching of Foreign Languages in the Elementary School. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1953.

. Foreign Languages in the Elemen- tary School: A Struggle Against Mediocrity. Austin: University of TBcas Press, 1969. Arendt, Jermaine. “Criteria for Admission: A Call for Research.” The FLES Student A Study. New York Chilton Books (1%7): 15-22. Baranick, William A. and Paul L. Markham. “Attitudes of Elementary School Principals lbward Foreign Language Instruction.” Foreign Language Annals 19 (1986): 481-85. Bourque, Edward H., ed. TheFLESStudent: A Study. New York Chilton Books, 1%7. Carroll, John B. “Research on Teaching Foreign Languages.” Handbook of Research on Teach- ing. Chicago: Rand McNally (1963): 1060-1100. Rpt. in Readings in Foreign Languages for the Elementary School. Ed. Stanley Levenson and William Kendrick. Massachusetts: Blaisdell

Publishing Co. (1967): 73-127. . “Trends and Developments in

Second Language %aching to Young Children.” Amerika-Haus, Hamburg, 11 May 1966. Rpt. “Psychological and Educational Research into Second Language Teaching to Young Children,” in H. H. Stern, ed., Languages and the Young School Child. London: Oxford University Press (1%9): 5668.

10. . The Foreign Language At- tainments of Language Majors in the Senior Year A Survey Conducted in US. Colleges and Universities. Cambridge, MA: Laboratory for Research in Instruction, Harvard University, 1%7.

11. Curtain, Helena and Carol Ann Pesola. Languages and Children - Making the Match. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1988.

12. Donoghue, Mildred R. “A Rationale for FLES,” in Mildred R. Donoghue, ed., Foreign LanguagB and the Schook A Book of Readings. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Co. (1%7): 60-67.

and John F. Kunkle. Second Lan- guages in Primary Education. Rowley, M A Newbury House Publishers, Inc., 1979.

14. Dreier, Grace M. “Developing and Introducing a Program of Conversational Spanish in the Elementary Schools of Los Angela, California!’ Submitted to the National Conference on the Role of Foreign Languages in American Schools. Washington, D.C.: January 15, 1953.

15. Dunkel, Harold S. and Roger A. Met. &nch in the Elementary School, Five Years Experience. The University of Chicago Press, 1%2.

16. Educational Service Bureau. Modem Foreign Language Teaching in the Elementary Gmdes. T h s : Emple University, 1962.

17. Eriksson, Marguerite, Ilse Forest and Ruth Mulhauser. Foreign Languages in the Elementary School. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1964

18. Evaluation of the Effect of Foreign Language Study in the Elementary School Upon Achieve- ment in the High School. Board of Education, Borough of S o m e d e , New Jersey, 1%2.

19. Finocchiaro, Mary. Znching Childmn Foreign Languages. New York McGraw Hill Book Com- Pay , 1964-

20. Fisher, Carol. “Alternative to Normative Tests,” inEdwardH. Bourque, ed., TheFLESStudenr A Stud.. New York Chilton Books (1968): 34-39.

21. Geigle, Ralph C, “Foreign Languages and Basic Learning!’ The Elementary School Joumat LVII May (1957): 418-420.

22. Geissinger, John B. “Foreign Languages in the

9.

13.

508 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - DECEMBER 1%

Elementary Schools.” The American School Board Journal CXXXIII August (1956): 27-29.

23. Gramer, V i a . “Kinds of Knowledge Relevant to Foreign Language Instruction,” in Roger A. m e t , ed., FLESandthe Objectivesof the Con- temporary Elementary Schools. New York: Chilton Books (1967): 25-30.

24. Izzo, Suzanne. Second Language Learning: A Review of Related Studies. Virginia: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1981.

25. Johnson, Charles E., Joseph S. Flores, Fred P. Ellison and Miguel A. Riestra. TheDevelopment and Eltaluation on Methods and Materials to Facilitate Foreign Language Instruction in Elementary Schools. Illinois: University of Illinois, 1963.

“The Effect of Foreign Language Instruction on Basic Learning in Elementary Schools.” The Modern Language Journal XLVII January

27. Kelly, Louis G. 25 Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, 1969.

28. Krashen, Stephen D. “Accounting for Child- Adult Differences in Second Language Rate and Attainment,” in Stephen D. Krashen, Robin C. Swcella, and Michael H. Long, eds., Child- Adult Differences in Second Language Acquisi- tion: Series on Issues in Second Language Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. (1982): 202-226.

, Michael H. Long and Robin C. Scarcella. “Age, Rate, and Eventual Attainment in Second Language Acquisition,” in Stephen D. Krashen, Robin C. Swcella and Michael H. Long, eds., Child-Adult Differences in Second Lunguage Acqukition. Serb on Issues in Second Language Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc, (1982): 161-172.

30. Leino, Walter and Louis A. Haak. The Teaching of Spanish in the Elementary Schools and the a f d s on Achievement in Other Selected Subject Areas. Minnesota: St. h u l Public Schools, 1963.

31. Levenson, Stanley. “FLES is a Revolution.” Cali- fornia Teachers Association Journal 59 (1963): 16-18. Rpt.inStanleyknsonandWilliamKen- drick, eds., Readings in Foreign Languages for the Elementary School. Massachusetts: Blaisdell Publishing Company (1967): 17-21.

and William Kendrick. Readings in Foreign Languages for the Elementary School. Massachusetts: Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1967.

26. and

(1963): 8-11.

29.

32.

33. Lipton, Gladys C. Practical Handbook to Ele- mentary Foreign Language Programs. Lincoln- wood, IL: National k t b o o k Company, 1988.

34. McLaughlin, Barry. “Second-Language Learn- ing in Children.” Psychological Bulletin 84

35. . Second Language Acquisition in Children. Hillsdale, N J Erlbaum, 1978.

36. Met, Myriam, Helena Anderson, Evelyn Brega and Nancy Rhodes. “Elementary School Foreign Language: Key Links in the Chain of Learning,” in Robert G. Mead, ed., Foreign Languages Key L inb in the Chain of Learning. Middlebury, V’I! Northeast Conference on the Bathing of Foreign Languages (1983): 10-24.

37. . “Decisions! Decisions! Decisions!” Foreign Language Annals 18 (1985): 469-73.

38. Mildenberger, Kenneth. Statusof Foreign Study in American Elementary Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Committee on Foreign Language =aching, February, 1956.

39. Modern Foreign Language Teaching in the Elementary Grades A Feasibility Study. The School Boards of the Union County Regional School Districts. Educational Service Bureau, Temple University, 1962.

40. Modem Language Association of America. Foreign Languages in Elementary Schools. New York Modem Language Association, 1954.

. FL Bulletin No. 48. New York: Modern Language Association, 1956.

. “Childhood and Second Language Learning.”Foreign Language Bulletin 49, 1956. Rpt. in Readings in Foreign Languages for the Elementary School, Ed. Stanley Levenson and William Kendrick. Massachusetts: Blaisdell Publishing (1967): 53-61.

43. Rapaport, Barbara and David Westgate. Children Learning French: An Attempt at First Princbles. London: Methuen Ltd., 1974.

44. Ratte, Elizabeth. “The Role of FLES in Develop- ing Skills for Social Competence,” in Roger A. Pillet, ed., FLESand the Objectives of the Con- temporary Elementary Schools. New York: Chilton Books (1967): 14-21.

. “Children’s Needs,” in Edward H. Bourque, ed., TheFLES Student: A Study. New York Chilton Books (1968): 43-47.

46. Rhodes, Nancy C. and Audrey R. Schreibstein. Foreign Language in the Elementary Schook A Practical Guide. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1983.

47. Savignon, Sandra J. “On the Other Side of the

(1977): 438-59.

41.

42.

45.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - DECEMBER 1990 509

Desk: A Look at lkacher Attitudes and Motiva- tion in Second-Language Learning.’ ’ Canadian Modern Language Review 32 (1976): 295-302.

48. Scherer, George A.C. “The Sine Qua Nons in FLES,” in Mildred R. Donoghue, ed., Foreign Languages and the Schools. A Book of Readings. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Company (1967):

49. Spaar, Virginia. “FLES in Retrospect,” in Ed- ward H. Bourque, ed., The FLES Student: A Study. New York Chilton Books (1968): 57-72.

50. Stern, H.H. Foreign Languages in Primary Education. The Teaching of Foreign or Second

157-164.

Lungnages to Younger Children. London: Ox- ford University Press, 1%7.

(ed.) Languages and the Young School Child. London: Oxford University Press, 1%9.

52. and Alice Weinrib. “Foreign Languages for Younger Children: Bends and Assessment.” Lungwge ’Ipaching and Linguktics

53. The =aching of Spanish in the Elementary S c h k and the 4&ts on Achievement in Other SelectedSubject Ams St. Paul Public Schools, St. Paul, MN, 1%3.

51.

Abstmcts 10 (1977): 5-25.

APPENDIX A CHECKLIST

The following is a program checklist for FLES practitioners and administrators? This checklist will give an indication of the relative strength of the elementary school foreign language offerings.

1

2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

Do the FLES teachers possess a high level of foreign language competence in speaking, listening, reading, writing, culture, and in pedagogy? Do the FLES teachers have an equitable work load? Does your FLES program have written program goals and objectives? If your program has written goals and objectives, are they appropriate and reasonable? Are the regular classroom teachers, administrators, and parents aware of the program goals and objectives? Is the FLES curriculum age-appropriate and meaningful for the elemen- tary school learner? Are the children engaged in a variety of activities to meet their differing learning styles? Is the program articulated both horizontally and vertically? Are the students evaluated, either formally and/or informally? Do the students receive grades for the foreign language on their report card? Are the FLES teachers evaluated by a peer or supervisor at least once a year? Is the program evaluated once a year? Is parental and community support solicited?

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

This checklist is based on past FLES program hurdles. If any response is “NO”, steps should be taken to remedy the situation.

* This checklist is a modified version of the FLES Program Evaluation Inventory (FPEI) for FLES Teachers and the FPEI for Principals and Administrators. The FPEI for FLES Wchers was pretested by 27 FLES teachers. The FPEI for Principals and Administrators was piloted with 37 administrators (100 percent return rate) who had no previous experience with FLES programs. In the expanded version of this checklist, all items were determined to be easily answered, even for people who lacked an in-depth knowledge of FLES and FLES issues. The FPEI for Classroom %achers, the FPEI for Children, and the FPEI for Parents are three additional forms of the recently developed FLES program evaluation instrument. See Audrey L. Heining-Boynton’s article “The Development and Testing of the FLES Program Evaluation Inventory” in Modern Language Journal 74,4, December 1990.

M i d d l e b u r y I

S u m m e r i n V e r m o n t

An intensive "total immersion It environment

Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian and Spanish

Beginning to advanced levels

Graduate programs in the five western languages

A c a d e m i c Y e a r A b r o a d

Florence, Madrid, Mainz, Moscow and Paris

Junior year and graduate programs

To apply for a summer at any level or for a program abroad contact the school of your choice at: Language Schools - FLA Middlebu y College Middlebu y, VT 05753-6131 (802) 388-3711

Please mention Foreign knguage Annals when writing to advertisers

510