Here is the second Arizona article from Michael. This is the one that needs strong feedback from us:
Hey guys,
I know you are all busy with various things but I was looking for a bit of feedback. Based on many of things presented on the PLC and with ACTFL I have been sending several messages to those that are asking for feedback on the CCSS on FL here in AZ.
In Arizona they have changed the name to “college and career readiness standards”. I am trying to find a way to argue for better standards than the crappy draft they presented to the public.
Can you give me any feedback on what I wrote to the “Deputy Associate Superintendent” of K-12 standards?
I figure percentage wise, these crappy standards influence mostly the 2 year high school programs so that is a focus of my battle. On this one, I tried not to come out swinging only to insure a reply of some kind since it is an individual message.
___________________
Dear Ms. Galetti,
I am writing to you after completing the online survey and sending extensive messages to the Foreign Language standards committee. This message is specific to the rationale found on page 2 of the draft. I do see that the rationale notes or acknowledges that students may enter “at any point” during the K-12 continuum but I think the standards for college and career readiness should better address the soon to be college students found in Arizona’s high schools. With so much emphasis on the readiness why shouldn’t the standards use better more concise language when addressing this point?
“Although Arizona does not require foreign language study for graduation, all three state universities in Arizona require at least two year of foreign language coursework to be considered college ready.”
By the draft’s declaration in the section titled Rationale, it seems that the 2 years of foreign language study has a special place. Yet the use of ACTFL’s incomplete standards does not give special treatment to this fact. The draft follows ACTFL’s scope of teaching language over the course of K-12 circumstances.
This is to say that high school study of a foreign language should most be aligned with practices that inspire language acquisition. I urge the committee to consider a draft that looks at language that specifically addresses the audience for college readiness that specifically includes a 2 year program in the high school’s of Arizona.
I further the point by saying students that are in pre-high school curricula across the state do not need to directly (and are not immediately to) prepare for colleges and careers. The idea that a 5, 6, or 7 year old must be ready for college that year is nonsensical and untrue. Each level of public education prepares them for the next. I hope this message is clear and not overwhelming and I would be happy to clarify any thing that is unclear.
Sincerely,
Mr. Michael Coxon
Spanish Instructor
TPRS Practitioner
NHS Sponsor
Desert Vista High School