I. INTRODUCTION

The Task Force on Foreign Language Instruction was established on January 21, 1983. In remarking on the "growing national concern with the prevailing monolingualism of the American population," Dean Lukermann charged the Task Force with making recommendations that would insure quality education and reverse the trend of entering students unprepared for typical college workloads. Specifically, he asked the Task Force to make recommendations on the following: (1) the possible increase in the number of courses required to fulfill the CLA language requirement (Route I); (2) a possible modification of the Route II option; (3) the feasibility of a language admissions requirement, fees and credit.

The membership of the Task Force included representation from CLA's language and non-language departments, other units within the University (College of Education, Institute of Technology, School of Management), language specialists from the Minneapolis Public Schools and the State Department of Education, as well as graduate and undergraduate students. The Task Force began meeting February 16, 1983, and set an immediate objective to develop the most comprehensive and positive perspective for reaching its recommendations. From the outset, Task Force members agreed that the implementation of any goals for second language instruction was not the exclusive responsibility of concern of post-secondary education. Rather, full attention to the issues related to second language learning (where language is learned, what is taught, who learns, how goals are determined and how proficiency is measured) required the consideration of data, experiences, and ideas from concerned individuals at all educational levels in the state. The purpose of this introduction is to briefly summarize the resources and methods used by

the Task Force to achieve its objective and reach recommendations contained in this report.

Data and materials reviewed by the Task Force can be grouped into the following general categories:

1. College of Liberal Arts Students and Courses: Committee members examined data on the language preparation of CLA's entering freshmen as well as transfer students. They reviewed course enrollment patterns as well as the conclusions contained in the report of CLE's Subcommittee on Second Language and International Studies.

2. State of Minnesota: Task Force members examined the nature, numbers, and locations of language programs and certified teachers in the State of Minnesota. They also considered data on senior high school principals' perceptions of language programs in Minnesota.

3. National Developments: The Task Force investigated current foreign language requirements in post-secondary institutions across the nation, data contained in the 1982 Illinois study of 1,265 colleges and universities in the country. Data specific to two- and four-year colleges and universities in the State of Minnesota were provided by a survey conducted by the Minnesota Language Review. In addition, statements on system-wide development (both secondary and post-secondary) in the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Montana, California, and Wisconsin were also examined. Task Force members carefully reviewed provisional proficiency guidelines established by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Finally, members read relevant excerpts from the 1983 College Board Recommendations on Academic Preparation for College.

Written and verbal comments from interested persons were solicited through

a series of four hearings held in April (April 6, 14, 21, 27). The first two hearings were directed primarily toward students. Class announcements were distributed to all CLA faculty; posters and letters enlisting assistance in publicizing the hearings were directed to all CLA department chairs, students academic advising staff, presidents of CLA student organizations, as well as student organizations in other units at the University of Minnesota.

Publicity for the final hearing was directed toward a broader participation. Invitations were sent to all CLA faculty. In addition, individual invitations were extended to all school superintendents in the state of Minnesota (435); academic deans or administrative officers from all public and private two- and four-year colleges in the State of Minnesota, as well as all campuses of the University of Minnesota; officers of the Minnesota Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (MCTFL); directors of Minnesota Language Associations. Copies of the invitation were also distributed at regional meetings of the MCTFL.

Seven advertisements for the hearings appeared in the Minnesota Daily, CLA nb, and University Brief on the following dates: March 30, 31, April 5, 13, 14, and 18. Press releases, editorials, and general articles on the progress of the Task Force appeared in the University Daily on April 13, 15, 21, and May 26.

In addition to the attendance at the open hearings, all publicity invited written comments. The chair of the Task Force received 29 letters in response to this invitation; 55 guests attended the open hearings. All hearings and written comments were summarized and studied by Task Force members.

II. CURRENT STATUS OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

A. THE PRECOLLEGIATE LEVEL

According to information provided by the State Department of Education (SDE), some 51% of the school districts in Minnesota reported offering foreign languages in 1982-83, down slightly from 54% in 1981-82. It should be noted that this meant 87% of all public school students had access to foreign language programs. Latest (SDE) data (1978-79), however, indicate that only 15% of the secondary school students actually enroll in these programs, slightly less than the national average of 17.9%. When students actually do take a foreign language, there is an attrition rate of 50% from year to year; i.e., only half of the students continue from first year into second, while half again drop between second and third year, with only 12.5% of the original group entering fourth year.

The absence of foreign language study from students' curricula must be understood in the context of competing pressures placed upon schools and students. Some of these come from the regulations of the federal and state governments, others from the local school district and society at large. These are reflected in the following explanations which are commonly offered:

1) there is a limit on the number of periods offered in the school day and foreign language may not be chosen because it conflicts with other subjects which are required or otherwise expected;

2) there is little reinforcement for foreign language learning in the community and the culture at large;

3) cost in teacher salaries, materials, and equipment such as tape recorders, computers, etc., is a major factor in decisions by school districts not to offer foreign languages;

4) small school districts must face the problems of cost effectiveness for courses with potentially small enrollments as well as the availability of teachers;

5) unlike the case in such states as Massachusetts and New York, there is no strong tradition of foreign language offerings in Minnesota;

6) the only languages offered generally through the state are French, German and Spanish, not necessarily all in the same school, and some students argue that they will not study any language if their first choice is not available;

7) students also argue that they are not required to study a foreign language because colleges do not require one for entrance or graduation;

8) students also often look upon foreign language as too hard or are disappointed that they do not acquire competency in a short time and therefore view foreign languages as taking too much time and commitment;

9) finally, there is the underlying matter of relevance to students' lives and questions of whether it will be of any use and for what purpose.

The profiles of students who actually enter the College of Liberal Arts indicate that a much higher percentage than the average have taken some language in high school. Of the new entrants from high school in 1981 approximately 65% had some language work (down from 70% in 1975), but far fewer had completed as much as three years and the percentage has been dropping steadily: 56% in 1969, 34% in 1975, and 30% in 1978. The figures on students who transferred into the College in 1975 after some post-secondary schooling elsewhere were slightly higher: 75% with some language study in high school and 38% with three years or more. In both cases, students with high school work were concentrated almost exclusively in three Western

European languages: Spanish (26% of freshmen and 23% of transfer students), French (22% and 28%), and German (20% and 21%). Although we have no data on the opinions of incoming freshmen regarding language study, 81% of the transfer students surveyed in the Pazandak Report of 1975 answered that language study was either "integral" or "important" in a liberal arts education.

B. THE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS

Of the post-secondary institutions in the state of Minnesota only three private colleges and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota recommend but do not yet require pre-admission study of a second language. Ten private colleges and CLA have a B.A. graduation requirement in a second language, while no other public institution of higher education in Minnesota currently lists such a requirement. CLA is unique in the state, offering college study in twenty-eight languages other than English (CLA Bulletin, 1982-1984).

There have been several modifications of the CLA degree requirements in second language study in the past 15-20 years. In 1966, the All-College Council increased the B.A. requirement to a full two years of college-level study or its equivalent, but in 1970 rescinded that decision to create the present system. At present, only candidates for the Bachelor of Arts and the two-year Associate in Liberal Arts degree must meet a graduation requirement in a second language; candidates for B.S., B.I.S., B.F.A., and B.M. degrees are not required to study a second language. The A.L.A. degree requires three quarters of college or three years of high school work in a single non-English language; the B.A. degree requirement is described as being completed through one of two alternate Routes: Route I requires completion of the equivalent of at least 23 credits in a second language, high school and college work combined, or passing of a validation examination at that level. Route II requires completion of the equivalent of

at least 27 credits, at least 15 in a second language or validation at that level and 12 credits in courses about the country or countries that use the language chosen. Foreign students whose primary language is not English are exempted from the requirement, and may not earn language credits in proficiency courses in their primary languages (CLA Bulletin, 1982-1984, p. 7).

All other liberal arts colleges in Big Ten universities now require two years of second language study at the college level, or its equivalent, of their B.A. graduates. Some, like the Champaign/Urbana campus of the University of Illinois, did not lower that two-year requirement during the 1970s, and others have recently strengthened a temporarily-lowered requirement to the earlier two years. Consequently, candidates for the B.A. degree in CLA at Minnesota are now studying second languages less than their peers at sister universities in the Midwest.

Data compiled by CLA for 1970-1980 graduates in all degrees indicate that 47% complete the second language requirement through Route II, while 38% follow Route I. Enrollment patterns in language and Route II "culture" courses since 1980 show that these percentages are still fairly accurate. The survey Second Language Study by CLA Transfers (Carol Pazandak, 1975) indicates that 59% of the students who transfer into CLA say they have not completed the language requirement; of these approximately 62% complete the second language requirement through Route II, and two-thirds of CLA transfer students complete the requirement in the language they had previously studied. CLA Honors students show a reverse profile: of those B.A. graduates whose major programs do

not require a foreign language, 60% complete Route I and 40 follow Route II (these figures are 65% and 35% if foreign language and international relations majors are included in the sample).

Overall, only about 38% of CLA graduates have five quarters, or the equivalent, of college study of a second language, and approximately 15% are not required to complete any study of a second language. According to the 1981 report by the CLE Subcommittee on Second Language and International Studies (Appendix B: Enrollments in CLA Language Courses in 1974-1981), most CLA students enroll in the Western European languages (particularly German, French, and Spanish), and most of the language teaching resources of the College are expended at the beginning level, again reflecting the prevalence of student choice of the Route II option. Of 11,224 total language enrollments for 1980-1981, 8,207 were at the beginning level, 2,056 at the intermediate level, and 961 at the advanced level. Of 11,224 enrollments, 9,909 were in modern European languages, 939 in modern non-European languages, and 518 in classical languages (Akka, Aramaic, Sumerian, Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit).

One of the factors involved in the emphasis on beginning language instruction in CLA is that entering students have been bringing with them less and less precollegiate study of foreign languages. There has been, since the 1960s, a steady decline in offerings at the elementary and junior high level. By the late 1970s, if CLA new high school entrants studied a foreign language they seldom studied more than two years.

Among the departments in CLA that provide foreign language training, there is a variety of teaching materials, methodologies, and goals or "tracks" that emphasize different skills. These variations often depend on the relative

"difficulty" of a particular language for American students (some languages require learning different written symbols, for example). Others are functions of budgetarily-imposed limitations on the depth or kinds of linguistic skills that can be taught (inadequate language laboratory facilities, or an average class size of 35 students in a beginning course that precludes stressing speaking ability as much as it can be in classes with fewer than 20 students). Other differences have stemmed from decisions to offer students options in the linguistic skills they wish to obtain (aural/oral emphasis in one beginning sequence versus grammar/reading emphasis in another, in the same language). In general terms, however, first-year (beginning) courses concentrate on the teaching of linguistic skills in the language rather than literature or other cultural materials. In the fourth, fifth and sixth quarters of language study, linguistic skills are expanded gradually. In the commonly taught languages (German, French, Spanish) literature is not studied formally until the end of the second year of college work, and in some languages there are further linguistic-skill prerequisites to upper-division literature and culture courses taught in that language.

In the CLA a higher proportion of regular faculty are involved in the teaching of the beginning and intermediate levels of the less commonly taught languages. Graduate teaching assistants generally handle beginning and intermediate courses in French, German, Spanish, although some faculty do teach those levels in Extension Division. Because most students who choose Route II take the culture courses offered in English by the relevant language/literature departments, the courses related to the second language requirement that faculty in the language enrollment departments teach are mainly Route II courses.

CLA students tend increasingly to begin any study of a second language at the college level, and most of them never achieve more than a beginner's knowledge of a second language. Few students take advantage of the variety of second languages available to them in the college, and to the extent to which CLA does not put more emphasis on teaching advanced language we are not fulfilling one of the basic requisites for international studies at the University.

III. CURRENT OPINION ON SECOND LANGUAGE EDUCATION

The opinions voiced in person at the hearings or by letter to the Task Force by students, CLA faculty and other educators were remarkably consistent in their support of the principles that second language learning was of great importance and students should be motivated to begin their study before reaching college age. There was far less agreement about how best to structure degree requirements and entrance standards to achieve these ends.

On the one hand, there were those who opposed any change in the requirements, either because the present system was said to provide desirable choices for students or because of fear that changes would have undesirable effects. The two most frequently cited examples of the latter were the burdens that would be placed upon already strained school budgets and the possibility that students would be driven away from enrolling in the College, especially if a no-credit system for preparatory courses was introduced. Even some public school administrators who supported language study in principle were nevertheless pessimistic about funding such programs in out-state districts unless there was an effective lobbying effort made. Transfer students pose an even more complicated problem, it was pointed out, because at present many intermediate level (4th through 6th quarter) courses do not carry upper division credit and Advanced

Standing Students could be delayed in completing their credit requirements.

On the other hand, it was frequently suggested that the only means of reversing the decline in language study at the high schools and community colleges was for the University of Minnesota to provide the leadership and signal clearly that basic skills in a second language needed to be acquired before entering college. In view of the small percentage of students now choosing Route I, it was questioned whether the College seriously intended that the majority of its B.A. students should acquire any significant competency in foreign languages; and, moreover, in view of the fact that many students took their required cultural courses before rather than after completing the year of language work, there were doubts that Route II was functioning as originally envisaged.

The Task Force, in addition to its concern for local opinion, was also sensitive to trends elsewhere. In recent months there has been a steady stream of reports and position papers, which for the most part echo the findings of the 1979 President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies. These include, at the national level, reports issued by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, the Report of the College Board, and the Task Force on Education for Economic Growth of the Education Commission of the States. Such materials are even more plentiful at the level of the individual states or regions and the Task Force had access to relevant portions of position papers issued by such bodies as the California State Board of Education, the Joint Council on College Preparation of the Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, the Great Lakes College Association, and the Joint Statement of Deans of twelve Pennsylvania colleges.

Without exception these materials urged renewed attention to foreign

language competency. The tone of the rhetoric is often as noteworthy as their specific finds: for example, the 1979 President's Commission termed American incompetency in foreign languages "scandalous" and blamed it on "the epidemic elimination of language requirements;" the more recent National Commission o Excellence in education entitled its report "A Nation at Risk" and cites the declining trend in foreign language study as among those that must be reversed in order to stem "the rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future." The rationale given for the necessity of second language learning varies in formulation and emphases in these materials, as it does in the many opinions voiced to the Task Force and, indeed, among the individual members of the Task Force itself. Nevertheless there is broad agreement on the three interrelated propositions paraphrased below, any one of which could be deemed sufficient cause for change:

a) the globalization of economic and political life in the late 20th century demands increased communication with people of other nations and this need cannot be met by relying upon others to speak English;

b) moreover, competency in foreign languages provides invaluable access to the scientific, intellectual, and cultural achievements of other peoples, both those of the past who have helped shape our present traditions and those of the future who may challenge us to rethink those traditions; and

c) furthermore, a knowledge of a second language enhances the individual's understanding of one's primary language and culture as well as stimulating an appreciation of what is common to all people, an appreciation of particular importance to Americans who live in a multicultural nation with a diverse ethnic heritage.

IV. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

In view of the findings reported here, the Task Force is unanimous in calling upon the College and the wider educational community to affirm the centrality of second language learning in the curriculum of the liberally educated individual and submits the following set of recommendations for action.

RECOMMENDATION #1

After careful consideration of a variety of alternatives, including the present system, the members of the Task Force were unanimous in the final conclusion that a significant level of competency could not be acquired with less than such a standard. Although the present Route II, combining language study with cultural courses, is not without merit--indeed courses in some foreign cultures are now required of all students under the World Studies rubric--it is not a meaningful requirement if the goal is to promote competency in a second language; therefore, we are recommending that the Route II option for fulfilling the language be eliminated. These recommendations refer only to the B.A. because the Task Force was unable to give adequate attention to all the issued involved in other degree programs -- i.e., the B.F.A., B.I.S., B.M., and B.S. -- in the absence of fuller consultation with representatives from the departments which administer these degrees. Nevertheless, the Task Force does believe that second language learning is important for all students, including those who use the CLA as port of entry to other colleges within the University and we think that a language requirement should be adopted for students other than B.A. candidates. Therefore we recommend that the new Committee on Second Language Education (see recommendation #5) study this matter.

The ramifications of such a B.A. Degree requirement in terms of students' programs and the availability of language offerings in the College should be considered in the light of our second recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION #2

By this requirement the Task Force intends to motivate the majority of our students to come to the College with the first half of their language study complete. The College currently recognizes that the acquisition of a second language should be begun at the earliest age possible if true proficiency is to be achieved and has long "urged" that students have three years of high school language work prior to entry. Nevertheless, in the absence of formal incentives, fewer and fewer students do so, and, indeed, some of those who have studied in high school actually begin again at the introductory level of the same language because present rules explicitly invite them to "repeat high school language studies for credit" (CLA Bulletin, p. 15). On the other hand, the Task Force recognizes that very few languages other than French, German and Spanish are currently available in the secondary school of the state and we would oppose any action that further discouraged students from taking the less commonly taught languages.

The Task Force also recognizes that there are good reasons that may

motivate a student once in college to shift from one to another of the more commonly taught languages and therefore further recommends:

RECOMMENDATION #3

The Task Force is fully cognizant of the wider ramifications of the adoption of these recommendations for the precollegiate level and the need to provide adequate time for secondary school, as well as those colleges from which our transfer students come, to adjust to the new standards of entrance being called for here. Therefore, we suggest the following phases of implementation, assuming approval by the College Assembly during the Fall of 1983:

RECOMMENDATION #4

Throughout our deliberations we have been made aware of the difficulties of simply equating coursework, whether at the college or precollegiate level, with competency in a foreign language and have thus stated our recommendations for degree requirements and entry standards in terms of proficiency, not

credits per se. There is a clear national need to define more uniform standards and be able to measure proficiency, however acquired, more accurately. This need has stimulated such groups as the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages to work on designing proficiency guidelines. Moreover, there is at present, whether or not the Task Force recommendations are adopted, an urgent need in our state to improve articulation between college language instruction and coursework at the precollegiate level. This has been recognized most recently by the National Endowment for the Humanities Project to Strengthen the Humanities Through Foreign Language and Literature Study which has awarded a grant for this purpose to a regional committee chaired by professor Leonard Duroche. The Task Force believes that such efforts must receive the full support of the College and there recommends finally that:

RECOMMENDATION #5

• nature of the language requirement in the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota;

• the means by which designated proficiencies have been determined and how they are to be evaluated;

• articulation of precollegiate and collegiate programs;

• requirements for other CLA degrees: B.S., B.M., B.F.A., B.I.S., A.L.A.

APPENDIX A

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Provisional Proficiency Guidelines: A Design for Measuring and Communicating Foreign Language Proficiency. New York, 1981.

Becker, Barbara. Duplicated. CLA Graduate Profile: Two Year Report. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Students Information Office, College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota, 1982.

College Board. Prepublication copy: "Academic Preparation for College: What Students Need to Know and be Able to Do." New York: Education Equality Project, College Entrance Examination Board, 1983.

College of Liberal Arts. Student Personnel Data Book (Tables 3.130-3.135, 1970-1981. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.

College of Liberal Arts. Student Handbook 1982-1983. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.

Council on Liberal Education. Duplicated. "Report of the Subcommittee on Second Language and International Studies." Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.

Couselor's Handbook, 1981-1983. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.

Crawford-Lange, Linda. Perceptions of Minnesota Senior High School Principals of Foreign Language Programs: Survey Results. Minneapolis, Minnesota: 1982.

"Eastern Montana College Toughens Foreign Language Rules." Billings Gazette, January 13, 1983.

Great Lakes Colleges Association. Duplicated. GLCA Statement on the Study of Language. Ann Arbor, Michigan: 1982.

Hechinger, Fred M. "State Governors Prepare to Pitch In." New York Times, March 22, 1983 (About Education section).

Honors Program. "Survey on language requirements in 8 public universities." Minneapolis, Minnesota: College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota, 1983.

Illinois Foreign Language Teachers Association. Foreign Languages in the Colleges and Universities of the United States. Glen Ellyn, Illinois, 1982.

Maeroff, Gene I. School and College: Partnerships in Education. New Jersey" The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1983.

Maeroff, Gene I. "Public High Schools and Colleges Raising Students' Class Standards." New York Times, February 8, 1983, pp. 1, 12.

Minnesota State Department of Education: "Recommendation to School Districts to Provide Minimum Comprehensive Secondary School Program." (Memo to all school districts) February 3, 1983.

Minnesota State Department of Education: (1) Number of Modern and Classical Language Teachers by County 1981-82. (2) Language Education in Minnesota 1981-82. (3) Districts Reporting language Courses Taught by Licensed Staff 1977-78 and 1981-82. Prepared by Suzanne Jebe, Language Specialist, Elementary-Secondary Education Section.

National Commission on Excellence in Education: "A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform." Chronicle of Higher Education, May 4, 1983, pp. 11-16.

Pazandak, Carol H. Duplicated. Second Language Study by CLA Transfer Students Enrolling Fall Quarter, 1975. Minneapolis, Minnesota: College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota, June, 1976.

"Report of the Joint Council on College Preparation." Duplicated. University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents and Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, March, 1983.

Simon, Paul. "Is America Tongue-Tied?" Academe, Mar-Apr. 1983, pp. 9-12.

State Board of Education (California). Duplicated. "Master Plan for Excellence in California Schools: Model Graduation Requirements." Sacramento, California: January, 1983.

Tonkin, Humphrey. "Language and International Studies: Closing the Gap." pp. 39-46.

"What We Expect." Duplicated. A statement on preparing for College by the deans of 12 Pennsylvania colleges. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Franklin and Marshall College. February 1983.

Minority Report for Recommendation 4

Since proficiency for the three year or three quarter entrance standard and the six quarter graduation requirement have not been agreed upon and are unknown at this point, it seems difficult, at best, to provide a definition of a one year or one quarter proficiency for Fall 1985 and a two year or two quarter proficiency for Fall 1986. Therefore, it is recommended that an entrance standard of three years be instituted for the fall quarter of 1988, one year after there has been an examination of a bench mark proficiency for three years of three academic quarters. It is necessary to examine a bench mark proficiency with both secondary students and those who are participating in the University's language programs before the entrance standard is introduced. In the fourth year, the proficiencies of both groups can be used to establish the entrance standard. The more exact standard can then also be communicated to secondary schools and community colleges in the state.

Dale L. Lange