In the December 28th edition of the Chicago Tribune we read: District closes books on French classes.
The District 64 School Board has acquiesced to the wishes of district parents and made Spanish the sole foreign language that will be offered at all elementary schools.
We think that is unfortunate. Especially since the district's FLES program is, as Dr. Sally Pryor notes, not intended to "develop fluency," ..."The goal was to develop those neural pathways so that when [pupils] reached middle school and high school and wanted to study foreign language in a more academic way, they'd be able to."
Toutefois, e'tant donne' que l'objectif principal du programme est de developper des structures neuronales, ces voies doivent developper n'importe laquelle langue e'trangere est enseignee.* As long as the proper curriculum guidelines are followed...
We note the article goes on to report: "Children receive two 25-minute lessons a week, instruction that is intentionally light on grammar. Instead, students learn vocabulary tied to other parts of the curriculum -- the names of the planets, for instance, when the solar system is being studied -- and the cultures of French- and Spanish-speaking nations."
The standard minimum guideline for weekly instruction for FLES programs, last time we looked, is 75 minutes per week. So, it looks like the district's program isn't just light on grammer, but also light on instruction time.
C'est la vie!
* Translation: "However, since the program goal is to develop neural pathways, those pathways should develop no matter which foreign language is taught."
January 8, 2008
Pas plus Francais.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Why is District 64 providing only 50 minutes of language teaching if you say 75 minutes is the standard?
During one of the previous rounds of cuts made by the School Board, instruction time for the FLES program was one of the casualties.
Was that one of those cuts that Supt. Sally Pryor, the D-64 Board and everyone else associated with D-64 (except, perhaps, the foreign language teachers) insisted would not adversely affect the quality of education?
I was on the D-64 foreign language committee that recommended the FLES program over a FLEX program primarily because (as I recall) it would provide a more meaningful, multi-year language curriculum - giving our kids a head start on a language they could continue in high school. The program's central purpose, therefore, was developing basic language proficiency, not just some "neural pathways."
From the sound of things, the FLES program has turned into more of a FLEX program intended to merely interest students in further language study rather than promote basic language proficiency at the grammar school level. Too bad.
Does anybody know whether the D-64 FLES program is actually working? Are the D-64 kids doing better in h.s. French or Spanish than their non D-64 peers?
I still don't understand why this particular school district is ALWAYS having budget problems. We pay WAY TOO MUCH in tax dollars to have this consistently occur.
D-64 is not the only school district with money troubles. But what do you expect when everybody doing the day-to-day managing, including the supertintendant, are usually lifelong teachers who have no MBA, no business background and no business experience. What $50 Million business in its right mind would make someone with as little business background and experience as Sally Pryor (or Fred Schroeder before her) its CEO, which is what she is? And what $50 Million business in its right mind make people like most/all of the D-64 board members its board of directors, which is what they are?
The Tribune reports on something in Park Ridge, weeks after it has occurred (as usual).
Post a Comment