The pendulum has swung! Elementary foreign language programs are gaining in popularity throughout the country. Again! Instead of only one type of program called FLES¹⁵³ we now have three distinct programs, with different goals and different expected out comes. But have we really changed that much? Let us take a look at the elementary programs of the sixties and seventies, for a moment.

There was much enthusiasm for elementary school foreign languages at the time, by parents, school principals, administrators and members of school boards of education. It was so logical -so well accepted- didn't every one know that children learned foreign languages much more quickly than adolescents and adults? Didn't the new wave of audiolingualism promise that Americans at long last would develop the ability to speak foreign languages? Didn't every one expect great results from foreign language programs in the elementary schools? This, then, was one of the major problems of that era... we promised too much!

As we take a look back, we must stop bashing elementary foreign language programs of the sixties. (Some of them started in the sixties and have continued successfully to this day). We have all heard and read about the «disasters», and «failures» and «mistakes» which had been made. No one denies that mistakes had been made, but we need to look at everything that was taking place at that time, and we need to try to put everything in perspective. After all, there were a number of important landmark events that took place, whose influence can still be seen in our current philosophy of second language instruction for children. Some of these were:

1. There were NDEA Institutes (National Defense Education Act) for elementary school foreign language teachers around the country, sponsored by the federal government.
2. There were prototypes of elementary foreign language curriculum materials and manuals, demonstrating the then popular audiolingual approach, based on real communication.
3. There were a number of well thought out elementary programs, some of which have continued to this day.
4. There were a number of excellent books and articles on elementary school foreign language methodology.
5. The FLES Committee of the A. A. T. F. began to investigate issues of FLES in the sixties and seventies, and this has continued in one form or another until its present day counterpart, the NATIONAL FLES* COMMISSION of A. A. T. F.
6. There was public acceptance of the need for foreign languages in the elementary schools, following the discovery that our scientists and government officials could not read the Russian journals prior to the announcement of «Sputnik».
7. There was a variety of instructional materials available which supported the different types of programs, including the use of film and other technology.
8. Teachers and prospective teachers took both methodology and language courses to upgrade their teaching skills.
9. There were some universities which offered advance degrees specializing in foreign languages in elementary schools, including masters and doctoral programs.




––––––––   256   ––––––––

10. There were a number of carefully constructed research studies conducted by school districts, all of which indicated that children learned foreign languages effectively at this level, and that the time taken for foreign language did not adversely affect the children's expected progress in reading, mathematics, spelling, language arts and others.
11. Administrators considered it a «feather in their caps» if they were able to offer a foreign language in the grades.
12. Real estate agents found that prospective buyers were most interested in homes in school districts which offered FLES.
13. FLES grew so rapidly that it was difficult to ascertain what percentage of elementary school students were studying a foreign language.
14. Guidelines for the initiation of FLES programs were developed by a committee sponsored by the Modern Language Association, led by Kenneth Mildenberger, who coined the acronym «FLES».

There were national meetings, national guidelines... and then... there was disillusionment. Programs began to be cut almost as rapidly as they had grown. Parents and taxpayers began to say that too little was achieved. The «Back to Basics» movement prompted people to say the FLES was a frill -something which could wait until high school. Quite quickly, this new star became outmoded and out-of-date. The audiolingual movement which had dictated that FLES programs only devote themselves to listening and speaking skills was in part responsible for its failure, even though some teachers saw that their students could handle the four skills.

Those of us who had worked through these years asked ourselves, «What happened?» «What went wrong?» Some of the reasons were:

• FLES programs promised too much linguistic fluency in too short a time.
• FLES programs grew too rapidly, without careful planning.
• Very few secondary school teachers supported the program, and there was little articulation.
• There were few «qualified» teachers -either their language skills were limited, or their knowledge of the elementary school was nonexistent.
• There were too many songs, dances and games, and the students themselves were not aware that they were making any language progress.
• The «cultural island» philosophy separated the program from the rest of the curriculum, although there were some attempts to integrate the language learning with art, music, science, mathematics, social studies, physical education and others.

Earlier we mentioned that there were three basic program models. If we define the overall term as FLES* (the star denoting FLEX, Sequential FLES and Immersion), we can summarize briefly the anticipated outcomes for each program model or option:

FLEX: A very limited introduction to one or more foreign languages, presenting limited vocabulary and expressions. Very limited fluency is expected as the program is usually scheduled for once or twice a week sessions. This is mainly an exploration into language(s) and culture.

Sequential FLES: An introduction to one foreign language and culture for two or more years, with the progressive development of language skills within the areas of themes, topics and/ or content areas. Reasonably good fluency is expected, if scheduled for five times a week for 30 minutes a day, for four or more years.

Immersion: (including partial Immersion) The use of the foreign language throughout the school day (or part of the school day) for teaching the various subjects of the elementary school curriculum. Good fluency is expected in the foreign language after four or more years of instruction.

Variations of each program model will occur, depending on a school district's needs, expectations, financial status, long-term availability of teachers, and input from a broad base of support, including parents, classroom teachers, secondary school foreign language teachers, principals, administrators, university people, guidance counselors, and other members of the school community.

The question is often raised as to which program model is the BEST? The answer is that there is no simple answer, and that no one program model is best for all children and for all school districts. Needs may vary-budgets may vary-goals maybe different in different school districts. For

––––––––   257   ––––––––

example, not all school districts opt to stress linguistic proficiency. Some may stress internationalism, some may stress cultural awareness, some may stress providing foreign language instruction for all students rather than just a limited few. Therefore, decision makers must be aware that they must go through the various steps to get consensus in planning a long range program, despite the fact that a recent research study concluded that as far as language proficiency was concerned, the most effective program model was Immerson. This study needs to be carefully analyzed, as it is seriously flawed. It did not control all the components. This was a study which attempted to compare «apples and oranges», since it was admitted that Immersion students spent much more time in the foreign language than the other two models. The logical conclusion should have been that it was impossible to compare the three program models. Furthermore, they used a standardized test which was neither valid nor reliable for the elementary school population, as it had been tested on high school. Decision makers must be careful to read research studies thoroughly before accepting their conclusions.

Some of the other trends in motion today reflect the lack of acceptance of «FLES history». For example, what was formerly called integration of learning is now called a brand-new concept «content-based instruction». Great care must be taken with this concept, lest foreign language teachers be accused of teaching subjects which are not their area of expertise. Some foreign language teachers feel inadequate to teach these content areas in any great depth, and are not familiar with the current methodologies.

Still another trend today is to pilot programs using video and the classroom or itinerant teacher. An excellent model in the sixties called «Parlons Français» could provide answers, as the project involved film and the classroom teacher, and a comprehensive study was conducted regarding effectiveness. It is important to research what was done in the past lest we follow the consequences heralded by George Santayana and William Penn Warren.

Some of the most pressing needs of the present and the future involve getting more information about the learning process, such as:

1. How well do children learn the foreign language in each of the program models?
2. What additional things do children learn in each of the program models?
3. How can we get a national priority again to train elementary school foreign language teachers?
4. What are the approximate costs of each type of program, remembering that a classroom teacher could be used for each program model?
5. What are the drop out rates for each type of program?
6. What are the most effective procedures for successful articulation? Placing a student one level ahead of others after seven years of foreign language study is not effective, and is not likely to win friends.
7. What are the best ways to evaluate the three program models? What are the best ways to evaluate language proficiency? What are the best ways to evaluate intercultural understandings and global awareness?
8. What is the optimum time schedule for each program model?
9. What are the different alternatives for staffing for each type of program model?
10. Are there other outcomes for FLES* besides language proficiency? Marcia Rosenbusch, in an article which appeared earlier in Hispania¹⁵⁴ suggested that we look at a number of other outcomes which might popularize the notion of teaching foreign language in elementary schools.
11. What are the characteristics of successful programs?
12. What are the characteristics of successful teachers?
13. What are the characteristics of successful students?
14. What are the characteristics of appropriate materials?
15. What are the guidelines for success for each of the program models?
16. Must a school district select only one program model? Is it possible to have all three program models in a particular school district?

Some of the reasons for the failure of former elementary school foreign language programs unfortunately are operational today, and could be laying the foundation for problems

––––––––   258   ––––––––

in the near future. By examining the past and understanding what worked, as well as brainstorming truly innovative practices, and researching them carefully, we can ensure a brighter future for all types of elementary school foreign language programs.

Curtain, H. and C. Pesola. Languages and Children: Making the Match. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1988.

Genesee, F. Learning through Two Languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1987.

Lipton, G. (Ed.) The People Factor in FLES* Programs. National FLES* Commission Report to A. A.T. F. Champaign, IL: 1989.

___. Practical Handbook to Elementary Foreign Language Programs Including FLES, FLEX and Immersion. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co., 1988.

___. (Ed.) So You Want to Have a FLES* Program! National FLES* Commission Report to A. A. T. F. Champaign, IL: 1988.

Met, M. «Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: Foreign Language in the Elementary School». Foreign Language Annals 18 (Dec. 1985): 469-73.

Muller, K. (Ed.) Children and Languages: Research and Practice in the Elementary Grades. New York: National Council on Foreign Languages and International Studies, 1988.

Rafferty, E. Second Language Study and Basic Skills in Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Dept. of Education, 1986.

Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. «Canadian Immersion and Adult Second Language Teaching: What's the Connection?» Modern Language Journal 73 (1989): 150-59.

Hispania [Publicaciones periódicas]. Volume 73, Number 1, March 1990