It is the school’s role to prepare its students to live and work in the world. In order to do this, schools have to keep
abreast of current needs so they can provide students with an education befitting a modern citizen. There is a growing
realization that speaking one language is not enough to successfully work in a global society. The United States is far behind
many other countries in second language teaching. Many voices are now calling for the US to examine its own policies
regarding second/foreign language teaching, in light of its own national position and from an international, comparative
perspective, in order to better understand the needs of current and future students. With a clearer view of our interconnected
social and educational strengths and weaknesses, the US can make informed decisions about the future of second language
education.
It is undeniable that America currently aims for a top spot among vying countries in the race to globalism. Ostensibly,
what America has failed to understand, from its monolingual perspective, is that global participation and multi-language
proficiency are inextricably tied. Although educators and theorists alike advocate compellingly for changes to American secondlanguage education, improvement on a wide-scale has been slow in coming, encumbered by wide-spread, erroneous beliefs
about language education, political interference, mass-testing, misappropriation of funding and a reliance on language ‘trends’
to dictate curricula. America may benefit from observing certain facets of successful language-education programs like those in
Finland and Bulgaria. This paper attempts to shed light on areas where America can improve their second-language education
system by adapting components of these successful systems. First, a brief history of American second-language education will
be discussed, followed by an outline of the current practices and problems. Next, the language-education systems of Finland
and Bulgaria will be discussed and compared to that of America. Finally, this paper will offer possible points of improvement
based on all three systems.
History of American Second-Language Education
From 1778 through 1798, scholars such as Adam Smith and Thomas Paine were arguing that the state should give
parents money to hire suitable teachers so that all children could be provided with a basic education. Furthermore, during the
1700sand 1800s, European immigrants ran non-English speaking schools at their discretion. In 1839 and 1847, Ohio and
Louisiana respectively adopted bilingual education laws that provided German-English and French English schooling. In 1848
the Hidalgo Treaty was adopted which gave Mexicans the right to speak Spanish in the U.S. The treaty is sometimes credited
with helping to pave the way to bilingual education in the second half of the nineteenth century. During that time, those who
spoke a language other than English as their primary language could be taught either in a monolingual or bilingual setting
according to their preference. Unfortunately, beginning in 1864, Congress prohibited Native Americans from being taught in
their own languages. Ironically, just a few years later in the 1870s, William Harris, a superintendent in St. Louis, argued for
bilingual education, saying, “national memories and aspirations, family traditions, customs and habits, moral and religious
observances cannot be suddenly removed or changed without disastrously weakening the personality.” (CITE) This idea is now
being revisited by scholars and theorists who research issues of identity and culture in language speaking and learning and yet
was transparent to educators over a hundred years ago(CITE). Harris established kindergartens taught solely in German to give
immigrant children a head-start. By the late 1880s legislature began to favor English over German. The 1889 Bennett Act in
Wisconsin caused all children from 8-14 to be instructed in English. The Edwards Act in Illinois called for the same measure.
Although both laws were repealed later, bilingual education was damaged to this day. Schools all across the country had
dropped the teaching of German by 1891. The 1900s saw the onset of tracking students’ progress in several states. The increase
in arriving immigrants in 1906 prompted the Congress to require a person to be English-speaking in order to be naturalized.
Some argue that this rampant xenophobia and discrimination towards immigrants has been one of the main factors in the
deterioration of language programs in the U.S.
Xenophobia and fear, exacerbated by entry into World War I, caused a landslide of language restrictions in schools in
1917. States and local government began to question the loyalty of non-English speakers and enacted English-only instruction
laws. The barely-surviving study of German was quickly abandoned in schools. By the mid 1920s bilingual education was all but
gone across the country. In 1922, the American School Board Journal published a piece by university professor Harlan C. Hines,
who wrote critically about the onset of testing. He wrote, “The writer has come to feel that a test loses its value and becomes a
dangerous weapon on the hand of the untrained.” In 1958, responding to Soviet advances in Space Technology, the U.S.,
through the National Defense Education Act of 1958, calls for more science, math and foreign language learning and provides
funds to both states and local districts to improve those areas of education. The next year bilingual education enjoys a
resurgence in Miami, Florida after Cubans arriving after the revolution immigrate. Also in 1959, through the Educational Testing
Service, James B. Conant publishes a report calling for ability testing, ability grouping and differentiated curricula. The report is
couched in the context of national security and competition with the Soviets. Students are tracked to different programs based
on their abilities. The Bilingual Act of 1968 gives federal funding to school districts to incorporate native-language instruction
and some, though not all, states adhere. For example, in 1970, Chicano students in Texas win the right to bilingual and
bicultural education. Furthermore, in 1974, after suing the San Francisco School District over English-only instruction, the
Supreme Court ruled that schools without special provisions for language-minority students were not providing equal education
and were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. New materials, in almost 70 languages, and sixty-eight million dollars are
allocated to bilingual education. In 1975 the National Association for Bilingual Education is founded. In the 1980s the
population of foreign-born residents increases by 40%. In Florida, an anti-bilingual ordinance is passed that prohibits any
“voluntary expenditure for the purpose of utilizing any language other than English, or promoting any culture other than that of
the U.S.” The strong language makes the growing anti-immigrant sentiment extremely clear, although the measure is repealed
13 years later in 1993. In 1998, California voters approve Proposition 227, which eliminates all bilingual programs and requires
instruction to be in English. In 2000, Arizona passes Proposition 203, which also requires English-only instruction (PBS,
Roundtable, Inc., 2001).
Current Language-learning Practices in America
Public school education is compulsory and free in the United States for children beginning around age 5 until they are
approximately 16 or 18 years of age. Control and funding often comes from a mixture of state, local and federal governments,
with local taxes footing the largest portion of the bill (CITE). Disparity in funding is a widespread problem, but state-based
organizations, the CCJEF in Connecticut, are working towards creating more equitable funding for all schools. Private schools,
which charge tuition, can determine their own curricula. In 2012, 88% of American children attend public school, 9% attend
private school and approximately 3% are home-schooled (Institude of Education Sciences, 2012). Compulsory education is
divided into three stages: elementary school, middle or junior high school, and high school, which is approximately twelve years
of schooling.
Second-language education in America typically begins in high school, when pupils are around 12 or 13 years old. The
most studied second languages in the U.S. currently are Spanish, French and German (Association of Departments of Foreign
Languages at the Modern Language Association, 2012). High schools usually require 1-3 years of foreign language in order to
graduate, but a student does not have to prove proficiency beyond earning a passing grade. Recently, middle and elementary
schools have begun to offer second-language study, but such programs are disproportionately found in affluent districts where
parents have advocated for foreign language study (CITE). The Center for Applied Linguistics conducted a study that found that,
although the number of schools (from elementary to high school) offering foreign language study are increasing, students are
not achieving proficiency in the target language (Pufahl, Retrieved: 2012). Pufahl’s 2012 research also notes that foreign
language students in America underperform significantly compared to their European and Asian counterparts. The average
American student spends approximately 450-540 hours on second language-learning during high school (Met, 2004). American
students usually do not have to evince second-language proficiency to be accepted into higher education.
Language-teaching practices vary across the U.S. and there is no national standard method. Teaching methods which
have fallen out of favor as instructional frameworks with linguists and scholars, such as grammar-translation, the audio-lingual
approach, and Total Physical Response are still in use in some parts of the country. Fortunately, however, Magnan (2007)
reports that most districts use more current methods such as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) which is based on the
theory of communicative competency attributed to Dell Hymes in his 1972 and 1974 works. However, Byrnes (2006) has found
that CLT relies heavily on language for transactional use and Valdes (2005) argues that CLT uses the monolingual norm. Magnan
(2007) suggests that CLT and how we use it to achieve language learning goals should be reviewed, and advises those in the
field to look for answers in Sociocultural Theory, a view which defines community as the vehicle through which the language
mediation crucial to language acquisition comes about.
Current Language-Education Issues in America
In the recent past language-learning in the U.S. has been somewhat reactive rather than proactive, and based on one
of two perspectives: the desire for economic gain or in the service of national security and defense. For example, during the
Cold War, the U.S. government quickly called for an increase in Russian language-learning by high school students (Mendez,
2005), but that led only to a temporary boost in study. The ‘miraculous’ economic boom of Japan in the 1980s suddenly
increased the desire for Japanese language learning (Forsberg, 2000) in the hopes that business between America and Japan
would grow, but again, the interest was short-lived. In the wake of 9/11 Americans were made aware of the desperate
scramble to find qualified interpreters of Arabic who could make sense not only of spoken testimony and written content, but
who could interpret culture, subculture and systems of belief. That trend is now giving way under the next up-and-coming
language: as China becomes an economic superpower, Americans are hurrying to learn Chinese (Welch, 2011).
Unheeded by or unknown to most, this reactionary stampede towards certain languages continues even at the end of
two decades of warnings that sustained foreign-language learning is vital to both the progress and security of America(CITE).
Language study continues to be subject to trendy policies that focus on increasing the number of students who speak ‘critical
languages,’ like Arabic and Chinese (CITE). This kind of approach makes no provision for a sudden shift in which languages are
‘critical’ and keeps America’s foreign language-learning policy at the mercy of current events. For example, in June, 2004, at the
summit on National Language Policy, the Department of Defense and University of Maryland’s Center for the Advanced Study
of Languages, spoke of the immediate need for “governmental personnel who can function at the advanced proficiency level”
(Blake & Kramsch, 2007). Undoubtedly true, we should have been educating students consistently to create the highly
proficient population that we seem to so dangerously lack. It is now clearly important that America create long-term,
sustainable goals for enhancing language education in world languages as well as for ‘critical languages.’ If accomplished,
America’s students would have a precedent of successful language-learning and be more likely to be prepared in a given
language, rather than rushing to learn the critical language of the moment.
Another problem that besets second language education in the U.S. is an obsession with testing. The reliance on
standardized testing has resulted in less class time devoted to ‘non-core’ subjects like second language (CITE), and more time
devoted to ‘teaching to the test,’ a practice which has met with increasing opposition from teachers, parents and some policy
makers(CITE). Tied to this problem is the idea that not all subjects are ‘core.’ It is easy for students to dismiss classes that seem
to be ‘second-class’ and it is easy for administrators to classes deemed less important than others. Research has long shown,
however, that learning a second language provides students with more cognitive benefits than their monolingual counterparts,
and that knowledge of a second language increases ability in other areas (CITE). Language learning must be lifted out of the
‘non-core’ ghetto.
Furthermore, America, like any other nation, must be sure to be up-to-date with current research in languagelearning and second language acquisition. Language-education will benefit from having both a theoretical and practical
approach. Such an approach helps reduce the introduction of fads and ‘quick-fix’ methods into the curriculum before they have
been proven effective. In order for pedagogical and theoretical approaches to be ubiquitously utilized, teacher education must
include a solid foundation in theory and practice alike, and be more rigorous. Finally, teachers must be given their due respect;
their jobs are arguably one of the most important in any nation, because it is through them that an entire country learns and
grows and is prepared (or not) for the future. Their social status and necessarily their pay should reflect that; a promotion in
pay and status will naturally make the profession more enticing, increase applicants and allow teacher-education programs to
select only the best, which in turn will improve the quality of education their future students receive.
Blake and Kramsch (2007) ask what the effect to date of existing language policy has been. American elementary and
secondary education has historically been fragmented (16,000 school boards), and inimical to federal language education policy.
Recent federal laws like No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top and the Common Core Standards have arguably affected the
viability and efficacy of language programs around the country—foreign policy has fostered piecemeal initiatives in foreign
language education—like focusing on the current critical language and stereotyping national cultures.
A final point of consideration comes from the sociolinguistic perspective of ‘language currency.’ This is defined as the
value of a language in society. Currently, English has a high social value as the lingua franca of the globalized world.
Unfortunately for English speakers, this has been documented to result in low motivation to learn other languages (CITE). The
average native-English speaker may believe that speaking a second language is not necessary, because other people will learn
English. Due to past xenophobic responses to immigration and consequently, other languages, (SOANDSO) points out that
learning a second language has now long been seen as “slightly un-American” (Blake & Kramsch, 2007). Certainly not all
monolingual Americans feel that way, but the problem of motivation to learn a second language remains. Many studies show
that motivation and attitude towards learning a language is one of the most important indicators of success. If American
motivation is low due to the perception that other languages simply aren’t necessary for them, we will continue to produce a
largely monolingual society.
The adoption of English as the lingua franca naturally creates a privileged class of language-users: those whose native
language is English, just as it did for French speakers when it was considered the language of business, diplomacy and power
from the 17th century to the middle of the 20th (Top Languages, 2011).
However, evidence suggests that English may be on its way out as the lingua franca already, with Spanish and
Chinese native speakers on the rise, and those studying these languages as a second or third, are also on the rise(CITE). In 2013,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs identified French as the second most spoken language in Europe, after German and before
English (Ministere des Affaires etrangeres, 2013). (Although it is necessary to note that many Europeans speak more than two
languages). It’s time for America to stop its reactive policy towards language learning now, so that when English is no longer
the most socially valuable language, this country and its people will be able to smoothly transition, without the familiar
scramble to learn the next ‘critical’ language.
The current questions are: How do we define language education now, in a way that appeals to parents, educators,
administrators and government, and holds together the democratic ideals of this country? How can we redefine language
learning as not just for the elite? How do we make it clear that English won’t always be the most widely-spoken language and
that improving language learning has to be done now, in advance of desperate need?
Consider the extreme disadvantage faced by people who cannot get access to English classes—and imagine
Americans in that position when we don’t speak the next lingua franca. Consider the up-front cost involved in scrambling to
catch up to a new world-language, as opposed to that of a well-managed, carefully funded system over time, that teaches many
languages. A first step, that is arguably cost-efficient, is to make America’s current population of speakers of other languages
our ‘language resources.’ Between 1980 and 2000, speakers of languages other than English in the U.S. more than doubled,
rising from 23 million to 46.9 million (Wiley, 2007).
Instead of this defensive, myopic, reactionary stimulus for language learning, a more sustainable system needs to be
implemented. The monolingualism prevalent in America is an aberration of the global norm and does not suit today’s students
who must become global citizens, both for the sake of business and the sake of coexistence. It can only be assumed that a
deeper understanding of other languages and cultures will lead to more sympathetic understanding of one another. As
Magnan eloquently states, students today must acquire “an international, intellectual identity as well as a national one”
(Magnan, 2007).
America will benefit from looking critically at successful language education abroad. Though the situations are not
always congruous, there are some key points that America can adapt to fit its own system. We will look at education in Finland
and Bulgaria and discuss how America can implement certain aspects to improve its second language education.
Second-language Education in Finland
Finland has a nine-year, basic education program of compulsory schooling, starting around age 7 until about 16,
which is tuition-free and provides fully subsidized meals to all full-time pupils (Sahlberg CITATION). Schooling includes free
daycare and pre-school programs (CITE SAHL). Finnish education is funded by the national government, ensuring that each
municipality gets an equitable amount of monetary support (The Finland Phenomenon CITE). Post-compulsory education begins
when a student is approximately 16 years old and they can choose a secondary general academic or a vocational school.
Throughout compulsory education, even into post-compulsory, students learn in a system that does not track, select or stream
students based on ability (The Finland Phenomenon). Standardized tests are non-existent until post-compulsory school.
Second language education in Finland begins around 3rd grade and is compulsory (CITE that history article). Finland
adopts the rationale of “Mother-tongue plus two” (MT+2), with the goal that all Finnish students speak their native language
plus two more foreign languages. The most studied foreign languages are English (63%), German (18%) and French (3%).
Swedish is also studied, but is not considered a foreign language as it is one of the national languages of Finland. A second
foreign language is required starting in 8th grade. A third foreign language is not required, but can be started in upper secondary
school or university after the student is 16 years old. Finnish students spend approximately ????????? hours studying a second
language and ???? studying a third.
Finnish teachers in general, including language teachers, must complete a rigorous teacher education program and
earn a master’s degree in their field. This helps ensure that Finnish language classrooms are as up-to-date as possible in terms
of language pedagogy, language-acquisition theories and classroom practices. A set of national guidelines exists, but these
guidelines can be interpreted by each municipality. A prevalent theme in Finnish classrooms is the idea of trust and
transparency. The teachers are highly educated and are thus trusted to impart knowledge to their students in the manner best
fitting the class. The teachers, like the students, are not evaluated and monitored.
Lessons from Finland: Start early, make a second language a priority subject, trust teachers and don’t subject students to
testing. Make funding a federal responsibility so that it’s equitable for all.
Bulgarian system:
The education system in Bulgaria is compulsory for all students between the ages of 7 and 16, and is managed by the Ministry
of Education and Science (CITE). Education at all state-owned schools is tuition-free. Private schools do exist, but are few in
number, especially in the lower grades. Bulgaria’s education system has traditionally had very high standards, and been
relatively equitable as a tradition of the former Socialist government (CITE). There are eight main subjects in all compulsory
schooling: Bulgarian language and literature, mathematics, information technology, social science& civics, natural science &
ecology, music & art, physical education and foreign languages. A typical school year runs from September to May or June.
Students attend school in assigned ‘shifts’ of morning or afternoon classes; that is, they attend only one shift a day.
Like many other EU countries, it is requisite for graduation to have achieved a certain level of proficiency in a second
language. Therefore, Bulgaria has approached second-language teaching in two ways: first, language-learning is done through
the framework of ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning’ (CLIL), which means that content-subjects can be taught in the
second language OR that the content of the second-language class focuses on the content of other main subjects (CITE). An
important distinction from American programs is that in Bulgaria, foreign language classes are considered ‘core’ classes. The
second approach is creating ‘language schools,’ wherein a large percentage (almost all, save Bulgarian language and literature
classes) of the classes taught in a particular language school are conducted in the second language only. Typically, the language
schools offer the best education and are popular, requiring students to pass an exam before being accepted. The most popular
language schools are currently English, French and German, but Spanish is increasing in popularity as well (CITE). These schools
are five-year high schools in which the first year is used strictly for the purpose of second-language learning. Students receive
intense, immersive study in the second language to prepare them for the following four years, wherein most subjects will be
taught in the target language. This system has met with considerable success. It is typical for Bulgarian students to begin
second-language learning at approximately 10-12 years of age. It is also around the age of 12 that the intensive year of focus on
second-language learning occurs if one is accepted into a 'language school.'
The theoretical and practical approaches of CLIL are well known and implemented in Bulgarian second-language
classrooms, helping to ensure that language education is providing the students with the practice necessary for proficiency.
Content-based learning has been favored because of its obvious application in both classroom and 'real-life' situations.
Lessons from Bulgaria: make language a core class, use a well-known methodology, perhaps create language schools?
Now that we’ve seen some of the differences among these language-education systems we will discuss some areas
where America can benefit from a critical comparison with Finland and Bulgaria and their views on national curriculum,
approaches to language teaching and social views of language learning. Finland and Bulgaria both impose national guidelines on
their education system, but in both cases the guidelines are flexible and can be interpreted. They serve as a theoretical and
practical framework to assist teachers, and do not dictate exactly how to teach. Although the population of America is both
larger and more diverse than those of Finland and Bulgaria, national standards can still be implemented with a view towards
more equitable education.
Another area where America can learn from Finland is their ideologies on testing. Finland imposes no standardized
testing until post-secondary school. The root of the standardized testing problem lies in its inextricability (apparently) from
funding, which began to catch on in the early 1900s. The inequity caused by funding in such a manner is perfectly described by
the Matthew Effect, which says, in essence, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (Merton, 1968). When funding is
tied to testing it means that the schools that are already doing the best are getting more funding to keep doing so, while the
schools that are not meeting standards are not being provided with adequate funding to improve conditions. Funding should be
unilateral and condition-less, provided by the federal government, as they do in Finland.
Furthermore, proficiency in a second language should be a requirement to graduate, as it is in Finland. If one speaks a
heritage or home language, there is no reason why that language should not be encouraged in school, and no reason why it
shouldn’t count as the required second language. Certainly the definition of proficiency must be re-examined and made clear
before it can be required, but as there are numerous studies and methods of assessment already in existence; it is merely the
task of synthesizing the most accurate. The issue of proficiency is clarified if America attends to another lesson from abroad:
the age at which children begin to learn a second language. Contrary to the popular belief that second language learning should
begin as early as possible, studies have shown that it is more beneficial for children to have a solid foundation in a first language
before embarking on their second. Therefore, it is best to begin in the early grades, first, second or third(CITE), as they do in
Finland. If children begin at this time there is less chance that they will not be able to pass a proficiency exam, because they will
have spent the requisite amount of years studying. Most research agrees that the average time it takes to learn a new language
is seven years (Hadley, 2001). That is a strong argument against the mere four years received in most high schools, where it is
often not taught as a core subject. Finally, Hymes, in 1972, suggested that language competency should be considered as
having a ‘short-’ and ‘long-’ range view. The short would suffice for the first years of life/acquisition, and the long would do for
“understanding the continuing socialization and change of competence through life” (p.287). Within this view, language must
be seen as a long-term undertaking that is as important as all other subjects.
America can learn from Finland and Bulgaria by implementing, along with national guidelines, a unified, theory-based,
research-supported method of second language teaching, such as CLIL or Sociocultural Theory. Instead of leaving teachers
alone in the huge sea of ‘fad’ language-learning innovations and out-dated methods, an up-to-date curriculum, with room to be
flexible, and a caveat that it will have to adapt with time, ensures teachers can provide the latest in second-language theory,
pedagogy and practice to students. That being said, naturally teachers must be highly trained so they can continue to deliver
quality learning in the classroom, as they are in Finland. Once teachers are unilaterally well-trained, the school boards can begin
to trust them, and not count on tests and evaluations to judge their worth.
A survey of 2000 UK teachers by The Guardian in 2011 cited a recurring reason for not enjoying the job. A lack of trust
was referred to by respondents in the survey's "free text" area for extra comments, and related to senior staff, parents and
governments (Berliner, 2011). It is easy to believe that America’s teachers must suffer from the same lack of trust and respect.
If our own boards don’t trust the teachers to be doing a worthwhile job, why should the students?
Missing points of comparison?
Conclusion—reiterate the importance of 2nd lang edu, & examples of how to reform the current system.