Examining Systemic and Classroom Factors in Program Decline 

Dawn N. Michael, OFLA Recruitment & Retention Chair
Reynoldsburg City Schools

This August I unexpectedly became department lead. This was not unwelcome, but a surprise, and it threw me into a position of both advocacy and responsibility. One of the pressing issues at hand was examining the changes in our program numbers in French and Spanish. Given that this is a common challenge world language teachers are facing across our state, I am sharing an outline of the factors I am considering and reflecting upon as I advocate for the programs in my district. I will explain these in general terms so as to  apply them to any district, not just mine.

SYSTEMIC FACTORS AND SOLUTIONS

First, what are exterior factors shaping enrollment in language courses? 

The lack of a state language requirement for graduation definitely has a negative effect on district investment in language programming. As language educators, we should be attentive to the priorities of the state legislators and officials we vote for and choose those who are committed to providing all of our students with access to language learning. 

Second, how have the changes in funding impacted enrollment in language courses? Given the current trend in defunding public education and areas outside of STEM or “career readiness,” we need to be active advocates for the benefits of language education for all Ohio students. Students should not have to live in a higher-wealth district to access language courses with qualified, licensed teachers. 

Third, while the Academic Honors Diploma includes either three years of one language or two years of two different languages, the remaining requirements are demanding enough that these courses are inaccessible to many students. Therefore the Honors Diploma alone is not a sufficient incentive to encourage students to continue to a third or fourth year of language learning. In a district where academic achievement may be lower due to a variety of factors, the Honors Diploma requirements deal an additional blow to language programming.

District programming and graduation requirements have an enormous impact on our enrollment and program stability. If only some junior high students are permitted to take language (i.e. only gifted students), that creates inequity and limits the number of students who will be able to reach a higher level in high school (which in turn affects class numbers and job security for teachers). When high school students are required to choose pathways or seals that do not include a language requirement, they may not have time to take more than the minimum two years of language required for college admission. Advocating for changes to these pathways and programming choices may be challenging for teachers depending on the financial health of the district, the general work climate for teachers, and how safe individual teachers feel asking for change without fear of reprisal. 

Finally, in established languages courses such as French, German, and Spanish, districts can offer online or in-person courses in other languages. These courses can be taught by uncertified or non-union salaried instructors. This statement is not a critique of the value of learning these other languages but rather of the devaluation of the experience of having a fairly paid and extensively trained language teacher for the sake of a district’s bottom line. This issue is best addressed within the context of the local union and community.

CLASSROOM FACTORS AND SOLUTIONS

Ultimately as classroom teachers, we are responsible for creating an environment that empowers all learners and allows them to experience success. We may not be able to control systemic factors, but we can control methodology, assessment, differentiation, cultural responsiveness, and relationships with students. 

If overall enrollment is declining, or the number of students articulating to higher levels is declining, I recommend reflection on the following questions:

• Are the curriculum and assessments standards-based and focused on communication and culture, rather than grammar and accuracy? The latter, more traditional approach is more likely to deter more students from advancing. 
• Are teachers willing to adjust curriculum and instruction to make language classes more relevant and accessible? Bemoaning a drop in enrollment without being willing to change the product we offer in the classroom will not help us. 
• Who is choosing to stay and continue? Are the demographics of the upper-level courses reflective of the demographics of the school or district? If not, why is that happening? (see the above question)
• Are teachers adequately trained on differentiation and modification of instruction and assessment? If students with learning differences or neurodiversity cannot succeed in language classrooms, we are excluding a significant number from our programs.

These are all considerations for me as I advocate for language programming in my district, and I hope that sharing these is of service to others as you experience similar challenges.