You are on page 1of 4

State Overview Positives Negatives

Utah
Starts with typical questions and answers
about standards
Utilizes national standards and 5 goal areas
1. The correlation between proficiencies &
world of work/workforce
2. Including benchmarks
3. Include I Can statements
4. Table format/visual
1. Proficiency 4 skills/3 modes dont fit all
languages If proficiency is central to the
basic standards
2. Limited for Classical Languages
3. Visually: if theyre never together in one
visual block, it makes it difficult to employ
Kentucky
They include reasons learning languages is
essential with the standards.
Recently adapted to address Classical
Languages and American Sign Language.
Tracks progress and gives realistic
expectations for not only teachers but also
1. Does include the Can Do statements
2. Much clearer chart/presentation than what
we have
3. They moved to 2 Cs instead of spread out
in the 5 Cs
4. Even though the chart is still lengthy, it is
1. It is the same long length as Utah
2. There is no implementation guide
Washington State
Very brief copy/paste ACTFL, endorses
ACTFL. They just pulled chunks out of the
ACTFL document and said nothing about it.
They recommend assessment by ACTFL. They
take out the will in the standards. Instead of
Students will They just say Students
1.The quick guide nature of it is helpful and
refreshing.
1. Too brief and nothing original
2. Not comprehensive enough to include all
languages
3. They did not think about the new teachers
not as helpful to them.
Georgia
There is a link on their website where they
further define things, including elements of
the standards & different language
groups/areas. The focus is oral
comprehension rather than written
competence.
1. This has a good layout & description of the
standards instead of just labeling them by
number. This makes it more user-friendly and
easier for evaluators & administrators or
teachers unfamiliar with our standards to
understand & use.
1. They say theyre going to use the Can Do
statements but she could not find where they
actually did.
2. At first I did not like having to jump around
to see different aspects but once I learned
how to navigate I found it more useful and
New Jersey
There are some good differences in
presentation.
1. Their intro has a mission statement & a
vision statement.
2. They include the term digital to include
some of the technology standards we have
looked at
3. In their intro they list Classical Languages,
1. I didnt like how they broke it down 8
indicators per example. It is confusing. (A:
Interpretive, B: Interpersonal, C:
Presentational) Then it builds up by number.
Colorado
They integrated the 21st Century & Readiness
skills map & Post-Secondary Workforce &
Readiness Skills. They only go from Novice-
Low to Intermediate-Mid. They encourage the
target language to be used most of the time
and how that is demonstrated. Teachers are
1. They encourage the target language to be
used most of the time and how that is
demonstrated. Teachers are encourages to
use the target language instead of teaching
about the language.
2. Readable At-A-Glance, etc.
1. Classical excluded.
2. Very basic too brief
3. They only go from Novice-Low to
Intermediate-Mid.
4. Too much charting
Massachusetts
One document for All World Languages
(with clear distinctions between Modern
Languages and Classical Languages
throughout document)
Introductory Material: snapshot of Goals
(Strands) and Standards, core concepts,
1. Nice Overview
2. 5 Cs and overarching principles.
3. Classical languages references appear
throughout the document
4. More pleasant to look at, good flow, easy
to follow looks clean
N/A
Virginia
N/A 1. Foreword, Introduction (all languages)
>Includes Goals *not ACTFL) and Strands
(=ACTFL Goals)
>Latin Goals & Strands
2. Organized at Top Level by Year Level of
1. Elementary is an appendix at the end.
2. A little too long
North Carolina
N/A 1. Separates the types of instructional
environments (dual, immersion, native
speaker, classical languages, etc.)
2. Great explanation for Classical languages
and different types of programs
3. More user friendly online
1. Wiki oes not look as official presentation
could be improved
Delaware
Their governor has spearheaded the plight for
World Language acquisition. Standards, PI
(Performance Indicator Docs), course syllabi,
understanding by design. The Standards
Document is called the Clarification
Document. *This state has a universal 2 year
1. 21st Century from the start
2. Good point: Expand the offerings of world
languages to establish the K-16 World
Language pipeline.
3. Good point: Design responsive
programming to make world language study
1. Classical and ASL is only mentioned in a
couple of places and very little
Link to Standards Suggestions (see Massachusetts)
http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/worldlan
g/Home/UtahWorldLanguageCore2014.aspx
N/A
http://education.ky.gov/curriculum/wlang/Do
cuments/2013%20Kentucky%20Standard%20f
or%20World%20Language%20Proficiency%20
8.16.2013.pdf
N/A
http://www.k12.wa.us/WorldLanguages/Stan
dards/WorldLanguagesStandards.pdf
N/A
https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards
/pages/browsestandards/modernlanguagelati
n.aspx
N/A
http://www.state.nj.us/education/aps/cccs/w
l/
N/A
http://www.cde.state.co.us/coworldlanguage
s/statestandards
N/A
http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/foreig
n/1999.pdf
One page statement per language
(or language group): characteristics,
how language fits into standards,
parameters
Less crowded format
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/forei
gn_language/
N/A
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/acre/st
andards/new-standards/foreign-
language/world-language.pdf
N/A
http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/staff/ci/
content_areas/files/wl/DRC%20WL%20GLEs%
20Mod1.pdf
N/A

You might also like