NOTES FROM TEACHER DEVELOPMENT ROUNDABLE DISCUSSION AT ACTFL
(Led by Eileen Glisan and Mimi Met, Nov. 18, 2000)

Professional Development Subcommittee
(Notes recorded by Lynn Sandstedt)

The breakout session was chaired by Eileen Glisan, who reported the results of a letter survey that was sent to some 60 colleges and universities that prepare foreign language teachers. (Note: To see the cover letter and survey got to "Professional Development Letter and Survey.") Thus far, 16 responses were received:

Question #1. Have you seen the enclosed proficiency recommendations before?

Question #2. Does your program of teacher preparation require your candidates to demonstrate proficiency at a minimum level according to the ACTFL Guidelines?

If yes, what level of proficiency do you require?

Intermediate High:                2
Advanced Low:                     3
Advanced High:                    1

If yes, how do students demonstrate their proficiency level?

Official OPI rating:               0
Advisory OPI rating:             3
SOPI rating:                          0
Other: eval. by instructor       3

Question #3. If no to question 2, does your program require candidates to demonstrate speaking skill with an instrument other than the OPI?

5 Yes (exit interview, 6 weeks immersion in foreign culture, study abroad, assessment in   foreign language course, advanced grammar)

4 No

The response to the survey was limited. Other members of the subcommittee who sent letters received little or no feedback from the surveys.

Concerns were raised concerning the following issues:

1) How are teachers expected to maintain and further develop the required level of proficiency in the language they are teaching?

2) Do certification and re-certification requirements include a proficiency level requirement? Should there be a recommendation that a certain percentage of re-certification work go through proficiency maintenance?

3) Should we recommend that the FL teaching profession use the medical re-certification model?

4) What happens when entry level teachers do not meet the prescribed university proficiency requirements in order to be recommended for certification? The group felt that this is a question that should be added to the survey.

5) In-service training should be long term and include activities and programs that are taught in the language to help promote and maintain proficiency.

6) As professional organizations, how can we go about getting state funding to help with more effective in-service training for FL teachers?

7) At the conclusion of the discussion, all of the participants agreed to send out the letter/survey to at least 5 people or schools in their area with the hope that the subcommittee would be able to receive a greater amount of information than was received from the first mail initiative.

8) At the end of the individual breakout sessions, reports were made to all participants regarding their particular topic.

National Foreign Language Education Model Subcommittee

(Notes recorded by David McAlpine)

The group from the June 2000 conference shared their progress, particularly their creation of a survey regarding foreign language methods courses. (Note: To see the cover letter and survey go to "Teacher Education Program Letter and Survey".) They added new ideas and actions and discussed:

a) how to reach the right people
b) how to shorten the survey
c) the background of the respondents
d) whether we could get some information from NCATE.

The group decided that it would e-mail all ACTFL members telling them where the survey is and asking people to respond on-line.

Model Mentoring Program Subcommittee

(Notes prepared by Peggy Bilbro)

Mary McGehee contacted all state departments and discovered that most states have no mentoring program. Other states have mandated, non-funded mentoring programs. The group decided that they would next contact state associations. Jim Torbet reported that:

a) In Maine, re-certification passed to local districts. They have staffing to offer K-8 language to all students. Over 50% of teachers are 45 years old and teaching more than one language.

b) In Connecticut, they invested the lottery windfall into mentoring programs. Due to diverse population, they were able to train and pay mentors good stipends.

c) In states such as Louisiana, retirees are allowed to work as mentors without penalizing them.

A model mentoring program would have training in the summer and release time for mentors.

The following publication was noted:

Wallinger, Linda. (Jan. 2000). Foreign Language 101 for School Administrators: Effective Evaluation of Foreign Language Teachers. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 84 (612): 41-52.

Jim Torbet will gather information from the north. Sandy Gutiérrez will gather information in the Fairfax County Schools, Virginia.

The action plan:

1. Keep collecting model program information.
2. Summarize and distribute for study.
3. Begin to develop 3 models:

a. for mentoring (from department chairs or supervisors)
b. for evaluation purposes
c. peer mentoring among new teachers (coming out of School of FL Education)