Fostering foreign language proficiency: What the U.S. can learn from other countries

The U.S. has long been indifferent to the study of foreign languages. But other countries have made language instruction a central part of education. The authors point to successful features of programs in other parts of the world that the U.S. can adopt as it begins to recognize the value of learning other languages.

Several years ago, an American schoolteacher named Elizabeth Clayton visited a first-grade classroom in France.¹ There she watched 6-year-olds move from French to English to Spanish “as naturally as breathing.” Inspired by what she had seen, Clayton launched French-language program for children in a Montessori preschool in Longmeadow, Massachusetts. Today, the school’s students learn French through songs, nursery rhymes, and creative play.

The U.S. doesn’t often look beyond its own borders for new ideas in education, perhaps because many Americans view their country as a global leader, always on the forefront of social innovation. But in foreign language education, other countries lead, and the U.S. lags behind. In recent years, while most U.S. schools have continued to view foreign language proficiency as nice but unnecessary — somewhat akin to playing a musical instrument — other countries have established policies and practices that make foreign languages an essential part of the school curriculum. And these policies have paid off. Today in Europe more than 50% of adults speak a second language fluently. By contrast, only about 9% of adults in the U.S. are highly proficient in a second language.²

Attitudes about language study in U.S. schools have reflected the attitudes of society at large. In an increasingly English-speaking world, foreign languages have not seemed to matter to many Americans. Obstacles to the development of a strong language curriculum in American schools seem daunting. Currently, there is a major teacher shortage, and many school districts recruit teachers from abroad because of the limited supply of language-qualified U.S. teachers. There is also strong federal pressure for schools to focus on other priorities because of the No Child Left Behind Act. Finally, administrators feel that the limited time in the school day precludes offering a well-articulated language program.

But in the past few years, globalization and world events have underscored the national need for foreign language skills, and leaders in education, government, business, and the military have called for fundamental reforms in our approach to teaching foreign languages.³ To connect with peoples around the world — for trade, diplomacy, security, and scientific advancement — the United States needs individuals with skills in the world’s diverse languages. Moreover, public support for foreign language instruction also seems to be growing. A November 2004 Roper poll indicated that nearly half of Americans believe there is “too little” foreign language instruction in the public schools, while filly half believe that insufficient funding is provided for foreign language instruction.⁴

Now seems to be a good time to ask, How can the U.S. achieve the level of foreign language proficiency that other countries have attained? What is the rest of the world doing that we aren’t?

How other countries foster foreign language proficiency

In 2000, to gain a better idea of what other countries were doing in foreign language education, the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) collected information about policies and practices in 19 countries in diverse regions of the world.⁵ This exploratory study found that successful language programs shared several common features, which we describe below.

An early start. In most of the countries surveyed, the majority of students are required to begin learning additional languages in the elementary grades, whereas U.S. schools typically do not even offer foreign language class es until secondary school. In Thailand, for example, English is a compulsory subject beginning in first grade, and a new policy in Morocco has students beginning French in third grade and English in fifth. In Luxembourg, students are required to begin studying German in first grade and French the following year.

A coherent framework. Language educators in other countries stress the importance of a coherent, well-articulated framework for instruction. Such a system builds on students’ skills from one level to the next, with aligned standards and a proficiency orientation. The framework is clearly understood by teachers and students and indicates when students start studying a foreign language, how much instruction they receive, and what levels of proficiency they are expected to achieve.

Countries that take languages seriously treat them as important core subjects. Often, foreign languages are accorded the same status as mathematics, reading, and writing and are required for university entrance.

In Europe, most countries have adapted their foreign language instruction to frameworks and standards developed by the Council of Europe, a 46-nation political organization that works toward unity among its members through measures such as promoting language policy. The Council’s framework has defined proficiency for at least 18 languages at elementary; secondary, and postsecondary levels. The Council’s clear standards carry over into the workplace as well, so that employers know what to expect from a graduate who has achieved a specified level of proficiency in a given language.

In Australia, the Australian Language Levels Project influenced major national curriculum development in foreign language instruction, particularly in Chinese, Indonesian, Korean, and Japanese. It provided a framework for the collaborative development of a syllabus and a common secondary school exit assessment.

Strong leadership. Fostering successful language education programs requires leadership at all levels of government and solid partnerships among key stakeholders. The nature of the partnerships varies from country to country, but government leadership is critical. In Israel, for example, the ministry of education introduced a new language policy in 1996, known as “Three Plus,” which required the study of three languages — Hebrew, English, and Arabic — in addition to other heritage, community, or world languages that students might choose to study.⁶

Language as a core subject. Countries that take languages seriously treat them as important core subjects. In many countries, at least one foreign language is compulsory for all students. Often, foreign languages are accorded the same status as mathematics, reading, and writing and are required for school exit examinations and university entrance. In Finland, for example, all students must study a minimum of two languages: one of the two official languages (Swedish or Finnish, whichever is not native to the student) and one foreign language, most often English.

Rigorous teacher education. Teacher education is critical to excellence in foreign language education. In some countries, university teacher education programs are highly selective, drawing from among the best high school graduates. In Morocco, becoming a high school English teacher involves obtaining a four-year degree in English from a university or teacher-training college, with a year of specialization in either literature or linguistics. Prospective teachers then spend a year studying language-teaching methodology and receiving practical training. Preservice and inservice training are both considered keys to success in teaching.

Language through content. In many countries, foreign languages are used to teach such school subjects as geography, history, and physical education, once students have achieved a measure of proficiency in the language. In Fin land, for example, a 1996 survey revealed that 25% of high schools were using a foreign language (most often English) for instruction in a content area.

In some schools, all or most of the instruction takes place in a foreign language, an approach known as immersion. In Canada, immersion education is a successful practice, used mostly to teach French to the English-speaking majority.

Creative use of technology. Language programs around the world make creative use of technology to increase the interaction of learners with native speakers and to improve classroom instruction. The Internet is becoming the technology of choice, with students accessing authentic materials in the target language — both text and audio and video files — and interacting with native speakers in online chat rooms. These tools can increase students’ motivation and decrease their anxiety, as well as provide more practice in using the language.

Support-for heritage languages. Linguistically diverse countries have established policies and practices that foster the maintenance and development of heritage languages — the native languages of their diverse populations. This works to the benefit of the learners, the heritage communities, and the society as a whole. In Canada, some provinces have established heritage language programs in their official school curricula for immigrant languages (such as Cantonese) and for indigenous languages (such as Inuktitut). New Zealand has established similar programs for the Maori and for some Pacific Islanders.

What can the U.S. do?

There are hopeful signs of change in the U.S. A small but growing number of elementary schools have instituted foreign language programs, including foreign language immersion programs and an increasing number of two-way immersion programs, in which native speakers of two different languages (most often Spanish and English) receive instruction in both languages.⁷ Recent congressional resolutions call for a Year of Languages (H. Res. 122) and a Year of Foreign Language Study (S. Res. 28) to build public awareness about the value of learning languages. This awareness, it is hoped, will lead more pol icy makers, educators, and parents to understand what Elizabeth Clayton discovered in that classroom in France: that U.S. schools “profoundly underestimate” their students’ capacity for foreign languages.

The U.S. needs to put into place the kinds of policies and practices that other countries have successfully established: government-supported, state-of-the-art language programs that begin instruction early, build from level to level, and promote heritage languages. Then our students will be able to do what more and more of their counter parts in the rest of the world can do — communicate in another language.

John Jarvis, “Foreign Language Study a Must Today,” The Republican (Springfield, Mass.), 7 March 2005.
U.S. Senate, Year of Foreign Language Study, 109th Cong., 1st sess., S. Res. 28, 1 February 2005.
See, for example, The Complete Curriculum: Ensuring a Place for the Arts and Foreign Languages in Americas Schools (Alexandria, Va.: National Association of State Boards of Education, 2003); Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (Lawrence, Kan.: National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1999); and “National Language Conference Results Announced,” news release, U.S. Department of Defense, 4 June 2004.
“Poll Reveals Solutions to America’s Language Gap,” press release, Ameri can Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 7 December 2004.
Ingrid Pufahl, Nancy C. Rhodes, and Donna Christian, Foreign Language Teaching: What the United States Can Learn from Other Countries (Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 2000). The nations surveyed were Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Spain, and Thailand.
Bernard Spolsky and Elana Shohamy, Languages of Israel: Policy Ideology, and Practice (Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters, 1999).
Douglas E Gilzow and Lucinda E. Branaman, Lessons Learned: Model Early Foreign Language Programs (Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 2000).