AAUSC 2009 Volume Principles and Practices of the Standards in College Foreign Language Education Virginia M. Scott, Editor Eva Dessein and Rachel Nisselson, Editorial Assistants Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States 62881_00_FM_pi-xxii.indd i 10/9/09 8:28:57 PM © 2011, 2009, 2008 Heinle, Cengage Learning ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Control Number: 2009937267 ISBN-13: 978-1-4282-6288-1 ISBN-10: 1-4282-6288-1 Heinle 20 Channel Center Boston, MA 02210 USA Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with offi ce locations around the globe, including Singa- pore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local offi ce at international.cengage.com/region Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd. For your course and learning solutions, visit www.cengage.com. Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.ichapters.com. AAUSC 2009 Volume: Principles and Practices of the Standards in College Foreign Language Education Virginia M. Scott, Editor Publisher: Beth Kramer Editorial Assistant: María Colina Marketing Manager: Mary Jo Prinaris Marketing Coordinator: Janine Enos Marketing Communications Manager: Stacey Purviance Content Project Manager: PrePress PMG Senior Art Director: Linda Jurras Print Buyer: Amy Rogers Permissions Editor: Mardell Glinski Schultz Photo Manager: Jennifer Meyer Dare Cover Designer: PrePress PMG Compositor: PrePress PMG Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 12 11 10 09 For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706 For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions Further permissions questions can be emailed to permissionrequest@cengage.com 62881_00_FM_pi-xxii.indd ii 10/9/09 8:28:57 PM 2Chapter 1 A Great Rattling of Dry Bones: The Emergence of National Standards in the Early 20th Century H. Jay Siskin, Cabrillo College Introduction In May 1932, Professor Peter Hagboldt contributed a piece to the Modern Language Journal, attempting to put into perspective the battles raging at the time concerning “the best method.” The contemporary reader will recognize the wisdom of his words and realize that they apply not only to methodology but also to seemingly novel pedagogical frameworks and proclamations: Each generation produces its own guides. Unfortunately some of these guides believe themselves to be prophets with entire new and revolutionary thoughts and theories. […] They do not real- ize that their new ideas are as ancient as our remotest forefathers and as revolutionary as those of a Tory. Frequently […] they are young teachers who have either had not time to gather experi- ence or no desire to read and digest the literature dealing with that which has been thought, practiced, and accomplished in the past. (Hagboldt, 1932, p. 625) Despite Hagboldt’s overstatements, his pronouncement is not without merit. It is well worth “digesting the literature” to situate current practice within an historical continuum. In this way, we may distinguish revolution from evolution, and, hopefully, demarginalize the work of our “remotest” fore- fathers and foremothers. With these goals in mind I will examine the earliest efforts to create national standards and articulations between high school and college. The Struggle for Standards The Modern Language Association (MLA) was founded in the last decades of a century marked by a fervent optimism in the forward movement of science and technology. In 1895, H. Schmidt-Wartenberg, professor of Germanic Philology at the University of Chicago, and secretary of the Central Division of the MLA, proclaimed that the founding of the MLA was the “main event” in the history of foreign language teaching in the United States. At the turn of the new century, Thomas R. Price, professor of English at Columbia University, scarcely avoided 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 2 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM A GREAT RATTLING OF DRY BONES 3 hyperbole during his presidential address to the attendees of the MLA meeting during December of 1900: As teachers of the modern languages, in our survey of our own Association and of the American university system, we must all feel a certain warmth of exhilaration. The progress that our favorite studies have been making is so splendid. Within that period of forty years which the memory of older men among us can now cover, and, for the younger men, in each of the periods into which those forty years could be divided, there has been, in a steady current of progress, so vast an improvement in our methods of instruction, so vast an increase in the magnitude of our work, in the number of our pupils, in the size and qualification of our pro- fessorial force. In the national movement of thought and theory in education, we have shared, indeed, with the physical sciences in popular favour; and even as compared with the physical sciences themselves, the growth of instruction in the modern languages has been, I think, the more rapid and the more impressive. Excluded at first, or hardly recognized, as a factor in liberal education, they have now made good their position, in all grades of instruction, in school and college and university. (Price, 1901, p. 77) Modern languages had indeed made good their position in school and post- secondary education. That achievement—accomplished by three distinguished national committees: the Committee of Ten, the Committee of Twelve, and the Committee on College Entrance Requirements—took years of investigations, de- bates, and committee reports devoted to methods, outcomes, standards, articula- tion, and testing. As a concrete outcome, the College Entrance Examination Board was created and institutionalized. The genesis of these committees and their in- fluence on the establishment of national standards for high school graduation and college entrance are the focus of this chapter. The Committee of Ten The late 19th century witnessed what many considered unplanned and uncon- trolled growth in the high school curriculum. Moreover, different colleges prescribed different entrance requirements, making it more difficult to pre- pare students for postsecondary education. Wilson Farrand, headmaster of the Newark Academy, decried this situation in his inaugural address as president of the Schoolmasters’ Association of New York: Princeton requires Latin of candidates for one course, but not for the others. Yale demands it of all, Columbia of none. Princeton names five books of Caesar and four orations of Cicero; Yale names four books of Caesar and three books of Virgil.… Yale calls for Botany, Columbia for Physics and Chemistry, Princeton 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 3 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM 4 H. JAY SISKIN for no science. Princeton and Columbia demand both German and French, while Yale is satisfied with either. On the other hand, while Princeton and Columbia demand only American History, Yale calls also for that of England.… (Ferrand, 1895, as cited in Fuess, 1950, p. 17) Furthermore, educators questioned the desirability or feasibility of a single curriculum, particularly in light of the large numbers and greater diversity of the student population. At the 1891 meeting of the National Council of Education in Toronto, the chairman of the Committee on Secondary Education, James H. Baker, presented a report entitled “Uniformity in Requirements for Admissions to College.” Its pur- pose was “to show that the present condition of affairs [as regards high school curricula] is chaotic and that it may be improved in many respects” (Baker, cited in “Report of the committee of 10” School Journal, 1895, p. 71). The council rec- ommended that a committee be appointed, to consist of representatives from universities, colleges, high schools, and preparatory schools, and charged with in- vestigating the problems of secondary and higher education. Thirty individuals responded to the council’s invitation to participate in such a conference, which was held in Saratoga, New York, the following year. Over the course of a 3-day session, the attendees formulated a plan that Columbia Professor Nicholas Murray Butler, in his capacity as chairman of the Committee of Confer- ence between Colleges and Secondary Schools, presented to the National Council of Education. The report called for the formation of an executive committee of ten, to be accorded “full power to call for […] conferences [of secondary and college teachers] during the academic year 1892–1893; that the results of the conferences be reported to said executive committee for such action as they deem appropriate; and that the executive committee be requested to report fully concerning their action to the council.”1 Headed by Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard University, the Committee of Ten itself was composed of teachers from secondary schools, preparatory schools, colleges, and universities. The choice of Charles W. Eliot as chair was a keen strate- gic move. He was active in the National Education Association (NEA) and wielded considerable influence not only in postsecondary education but in elementary and high schools as well. He was well known as an educational reformer; among other progressive positions, Eliot espoused an elective system at Harvard and ad- vocated electivism as far down as the later elementary grades (Kliebard, 2004, p. 10). Eliot made no class distinction between students preparing for college and those for whom a high school diploma represented the end of formal studies. For Eliot, “the right selection of subjects, along with the right way of teaching them, could develop citizens of all classes endowed in accordance with the humanist ideal—with the power of reason, sensitivity to beauty, and high moral character” (Kliebard, 2004, p. 10). Eliot’s influence is discernable not only in the work of the Committee of Ten but in subsequent developments in college entrance ex- aminations as well. The members of the Committee of Ten first met in November 1892, in New York. The members in turn created nine committees—referred to as Conferences—including one that investigated “other modern languages,” that is, 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 4 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM A GREAT RATTLING OF DRY BONES 5 modern languages other than English. The conferences were charged with mak- ing recommendations in 11 areas of concern; these concerns were formulated as questions intended to guide, but not necessarily organize, the conferences’ final report. Inquiries covered topics such as the starting point for the study of a par- ticular subject, the selection of topics, and curricular design. The conferences met at different locations during a 3-day period beginning December 28, 1892; their final report was adopted a year later. Twenty-seven thou- sand copies of the Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies were distributed free of charge; the second edition, containing an index, a table of contents, and an introduction by N. A. Calkins, chairman of the Board of Trustees of the NEA, was published by the Bureau of Education in Washington in 1894. In his introductory remarks, Calkins deemed the Report “the most important edu- cational document ever issued in the United States” (Bureau of Education, 1894, p. iii). He characterized the spirit of the text as distinctly moderate and conserva- tive, perhaps a rhetorical strategy to render some of the more innovative recom- mendations less threatening. Although the report of the Other Modern Languages Conference does contain some “radical” ideas,2 the recommendations for the elementary and advanced high school curriculum differed little from then-current practice. In fact, they nearly duplicated those of the Commission of Colleges in New England on Admission Examinations. Among the 11 inquiries taken up by the committee and its conferences, ques- tions 6, 9, and 10 are the most relevant for this chapter, insofar as they sought to determine the prerequisite high school curriculum for college admission.3 Question 6: In what forms and to what extent should the subject enter into college requirements for admission? Such questions as the sufficiency of translation at sight as a test of knowledge of a language, or the superiority of a laboratory examination in a scien- tific subject to a written examination on a text-book, are intended to be suggested under this head by the phrase “in what form.” Question 9: Can any description be given of the best method of teaching this subject throughout the school course? Question 10: Can any description be given of the best modes of test- ing attainments in this subject at college admission examinations? Recommendations of the Committee of Ten Course of Study The following are the outcomes expected in the primary modern language at the end of the high school course of study. These goals are only language specific when enumerating grammar items (point a) and reading goals, that is, number of pages to be covered (point b): Advanced German—(a) Proficiency in more advanced grammar. In addition to a thorough knowledge of accidence, of the elements of word-formation, and of the principal values of prepositions and 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 5 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM 6 H. JAY SISKIN conjunctions, the scholars must be familiar with the essentials of German syntax, and particularly with the uses of modal auxiliaries and the subjunctive and infinitive modes. (b) Ability to translate or- dinary German. It is thought that pupils can acquire this ability by reading, in all, not less than seven hundred duodecimo pages. Advanced French—(a) Proficiency in more advanced grammar. In addition to a thorough knowledge of accidence and of the val- ues of prepositions and conjunctions, the scholars must be familiar with the essentials of French syntax—especially the use of modes and tenses—and with the more frequently recurring idiomatic phrases. (b) Ability to translate standard French. It is thought that pupils can acquire this ability by reading, in all, not less than one thousand duodecimo pages. The final two points are generic for both languages: (c) Ability to write in French/German a paragraph upon an as- signed subject chosen from the works studied in class. (d) Ability to follow a recitation conducted in French/German and to answer in that language questions asked by the instructor (pp. 99–100). Prescribed methods of instruction borrow heavily from a preexisting document, the Synopsis of French and German Instruction for 1890, in the high schools of Boston. Activities and recommendations included: Translation from German and French, with the goal of developing trans-• lation at sight. Rapid reading; the authors decry the “mistaken idea of thoroughness” • as a waste of time, recommending that all passages of an abstract or technical nature should be skipped or translated by the instructor: “not a moment should be lost in contending with difficulties that have no necessary connection with the language” (pp. 100–101). Frequent re- views of reading material are to be avoided; rather, new texts should be introduced to stimulate students’ interest and enlarge their vocabulary. Practice in pronunciation, conversation, and composition should be • provided. This recommendation is barely elaborated. The authors ap- pear to consider translation into the foreign language as a first step in acquiring pronunciation and conversational skills. The target language is to be used as much as possible beginning in the first-year course. Desired outcomes were modest: “In the first year the pupil can catch by ear the names of familiar things and many common phrases; during the second he ought to form sentences himself; and in the third the recita- tions should, if the instructor has a practical command of French or German, be conducted mainly in that language” (p. l01). The deferment of grammar instruction until 3 months into the course. • The preliminary period should be devoted to sight-reading. The instructor should point out important points of grammar as they occur; in theory, the pupil would be acquiring the “inflections of the language” 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 6 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM A GREAT RATTLING OF DRY BONES 7 through reading and translation. After 3 months have passed, the instructor may devote attention to grammar in its more abstract form. Limited use of the Natural Method. The conference did not seek to • condemn this method but asserted that its success depends upon fa- vorable conditions and teachers “peculiarly adapted” to that method of instruction. As an afterthought, the conference noted that its recommendations could ap- ply to Spanish or any other modern language that might be introduced into the curriculum. College Requirements College requirements are dispatched in three short paragraphs. It was advised that college examinations for admission should coincide with high school re- quirements for graduation. They should consist essentially of a sight translation from German or French into English and a written translation from English into the modern language. Curriculum Design One of the broader implications of the Report related to curricular design. The Committee of Ten recommended that the modern languages have equal status for college entry as the classical. The committee outlined four model curricula, whose principal difference was the type of language prescribed: The classical curricu- lum contained three languages, including Greek and Latin; the Latin-scientific included two languages, one of them modern; the modern languages curriculum called for two modern languages; and the English contained one language, either modern or classical. In practical terms, a classical language was not an absolute necessity for college preparation, whereas three curricula prescribed a modern language (cf. Ravitch, 1995, p. 171). Report of the Committee of Ten: Reception The findings of the Committee of Ten were eagerly anticipated by the educational community. The Educational Review of 1893 heralded the significance of the forth- coming report and raised expectations for its positive influence on curriculum and articulation: No committee appointed in this country to deal with an educa- tional subject has ever attracted so much attention as this one, and everywhere confidence is felt that the result of its deliberations will be wise and practical. It is not too much to expect that the lead- ing colleges and the best secondary schools will be guided by its recommendations, and that in consequence a long step will have been taken toward providing this country with something like a systematic organization of secondary education. Every branch of the educational system, higher and lower, will feel the good effects of this long-desired reform. (as cited in Knight, 1952, p. 94) 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 7 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM 8 H. JAY SISKIN The following year, the same journal noted that all the magazines having “a large constituency of intelligent and cultivated readers”—the Nation, Harper’s Weekly, and the Atlantic Monthly, as examples—had given considerable attention to the Report. The critiques were nuanced, but flattering: “The great importance and significance of the report is recognized by them all” (Educational Review, 1894, as cited in Knight, p. 97). Outlook predicted that the Report would “profoundly modify secondary education in the United States, greatly to the advantage of our entire educational system” (“An important report,” 1894). The writer noted the progressive creden- tials of the committee and its recommendations, reassuring the readers, however, that none appeared overly extreme or radical. Nevertheless, the Report would shake up the educational establishment: “It would be idle to deny, however, that when the schools and colleges come to put in practice the recommendations made in this report—as many of them will and as all of them should—there will be a great rattling of dry bones” (“An important report,” 1894). It did not take long, however, for the critics of the Report to become more vocal, indeed bellicose. In an 1894 article entitled “A big question for teachers,” the New York Times announced the then upcoming meeting of the NEA in Asbury Park, where a “deep-seated pedagogic war” was in the works. There was no “open outbreak” as yet, but rather “a deliberate formation of the lines of battle.” The stakes were nothing less than “the very life of the present high-school system of the United States.” Opponents, who were designated as “conservatives,” main- tained that adopting the recommendations of the Report would be “the most revo- lutionary proceeding in modern education.” The Times article also recorded the defense of the Report issued by the Reverend James MacKenzie before an audience of between two to three thousand teachers. Among the objections to the commit- tee’s work was the charge that the proposed system was created by college men, who sought to “set in motion machinery which would make the high school train- ing simply a thing designed to furnish a uniform variety of raw material for the freshmen classes of colleges.” The Report had lost sight of the needs of the high school student. MacKenzie rebutted by noting that 70% of the men and women who prepared the preliminary work of the Report were high school teachers. This and other criticisms were attributed to ignorance, especially in those commu- nities where “old methods, low aims and small school appropriations were the ruling elements.” MacKenzie’s conclusion praised the Report as “the first classic in American pedagogic literature.” The Times report concluded with membership reaction. Among the discus- sants was Dr. A. F. Nightingale, assistant superintendent of the Chicago high schools. He spoke with “the vigor of a typical Chicago man, putting a degree of force into what he said that was unusual in this meeting of pedagogues, where a quiet style of oratory prevails.” An important concern of Nightingale was the dis- placement of Latin by the modern languages I therefore deprecate the force and fervor of that movement, now gaining strength, which would permit some modern language to usurp the place which rightly belongs to Latin, and for which there is no adequate alternative. (“A big question,” 1894) 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 8 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM A GREAT RATTLING OF DRY BONES 9 Other discussants voiced more objections such that the secretary of NEA ex- pressed doubt whether a majority of teachers would endorse the Report should it come to a vote. The discussion ended without resolution. Formation of the Committee on College Entrance Requirements The topic was again taken up at the NEA in Denver, where William Carey Jones, professor of Latin at the University of California, delivered a paper entitled “What Action Ought To Be Taken by Universities and Secondary Schools to Promote the Introduction of Programmes Recommended by the Committee of Ten?” summa- rized in the School Journal of 1895.4 Carey noted that although the committee recommended closer relationships between secondary schools and colleges, it provided no system for developing them. He urged the formation of a committee composed of representatives from universities and high schools to devise plans to promote a “federation” of educational institutions (p. 246). Such a committee was assembled near the close of the meeting and was subsequently enlarged to become the Committee on College Entrance Requirements, to be chaired by the outspoken Chicago man, A. H. Nightingale. The work of this committee was later subsumed by the Report of the Committee of Twelve, as described next. The Committee of Twelve The NEA, represented by Nightingale and Charles H. Thurber of Colgate (New York) Academy, addressed the 1896 Modern Language Association meeting, seek- ing a broader professional response to the question of college entrance require- ments. The MLA in turn created its own committee, charging it with the task of drawing up model preparatory courses in French and German, and making recom- mendations concerning their practical management (cf. Report of the Committee of Twelve, 1901, p. 1). During the 1896 meeting of the MLA, it was resolved: That a committee of twelve be appointed: (a) To consider the position of the modern languages in secondary education; (b) to examine into and make recommendations upon methods of instruction, the train- ing of teachers, and such other questions connected with the teaching of the modern languages in the secondary schools and the colleges as in the judgment of the committee may require consideration. That this committee shall consist of the present president of the association, Prof. Calvin Thomas,5 as chairman, and eleven other members of the association, to be named by him. That the association hereby refers to this committee the request of a committee of the National Educational Association for coöpera- tion in the consideration of the subject of college entrance exami- nations in French and German. (Thurber, 1896, p. xxii) The committee’s first act was to send out a questionnaire to 2,500 teach- ers, to determine the status of secondary instruction in French and German at the national level. The committee also sought to “elicit opinions with respect to 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 9 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM 10 H. JAY SISKIN a number of more or less debatable questions which, as was thought, would be likely to arise in the course of the committee’s deliberations” (Report of the Com- mittee of Twelve, 1901, p. 2). The Report does not reproduce these questions; this lack of detail conforms to the committee’s goal of providing clear, practical, and concise advice, thereby avoiding “a learned essay, weighted down with historical lore, statistical tables and exhaustive bibliographies” (p. iv). The oft-quoted picture that emerged was one of “somewhat chaotic and bewildering conditions” (p. 3). Given this complexity, the committee delayed its report until the 1898 MLA conference. Moreover, the committee refined its mis- sion: Rather than dictate radical changes in the American system (or lack of sys- tem), it focused on adapting the report to the prevailing conditions. The more modest goals of the committee became to describe a certain number of grades of preparatory instruction, corresponding to courses of different length; to define these grades as clearly as possible in terms of time and work and aim, and to make a few practical recommendations with regard to the man- agement of the instruction—recommendations having as their sole object the educational benefit of the pupil.… (Modern Language Association [MLA], 1901, p. 4) It was thought that the combined authority of the study’s sponsors—the MLA and the NEA—would transform the committee’s recommendations into a national norm. Moreover, colleges would be not only willing but also “glad” to reformulate their requirements in terms of the national standards (p. 4). Methodology became a key factor in the committee’s deliberations. The mem- bers noted sharp differences of opinion among respondents; before advising teachers how to teach, the committee resolved to reexamine the entire issue in the context of recent contributions to the field, “to the end that their final recommendations might be as free as possible from any vagaries of personal prejudice” (p. 5). As a consequence, the Report contains a lengthy review of methodology, presenting both the advantages and shortcomings of the Grammar Method, the Natural Method, the Psychological Method (i.e., Gouin and his followers), the Phonetic Method (outlined by Viëtor), and the Reading Method. The committee’s recommended national stan- dards clearly favored reading and sight translation. These standards were organized into three benchmarks, or “grades,” intended to provide unified norms of instruc- tion, thereby facilitating articulation between secondary schools and the colleges: For the purpose of simplifying the relation between the colleges and the secondary schools and for the purpose of securing greater efficiency and greater uniformity in the work of the schools it is hereby proposed that there be recognized, for the country at large, three grades of preparatory instruction in French and German, to be known as the elementary, the intermediate, and the advanced, and that the colleges be invited to adopt the practice of stating their requirements in terms of the national grades. (MLA, 1901, p. 43) Although the committee strove to make a distinction between outcomes and “seat time,” it nevertheless postulated that the elementary level would correspond 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 10 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM A GREAT RATTLING OF DRY BONES 11 to 2 years of the language, at the rate of four recitations6 per week; the interme- diate level, 3 years; and the advanced, 4 years. The Report concludes with model courses at the three levels of instruction and sample examination for admission to college. The following are the outcomes for the elementary courses, along with examination activities in French. German activities were similar in content. These give a clear idea of the ambitious goals of the committee and by inference, the necessity of focusing those goals on reading and translation. THE ELEMENTARY COURSE IN GERMAN The Aims of the Instruction At the end of the elementary course in German the pupil should be able to read at sight, and to translate, if called upon, by way of proving his ability to read, a passage of very easy dialogue or narrative prose, help being given upon unusual words and constructions; to put into German short English sentences taken from the language of every-day life or based upon the text given for translation, and to answer questions upon the rudiments of the grammar […]. (p. 46) The Elementary Course in French At the end of the elementary course the pupil should be able to pronounce French accurately, to read at sight easy French prose, to put into French sim- ple English sentences taken from the language of everyday life, or based upon a portion of the French text read, and to answer questions on the rudiments of the grammar […]. (p. 75) Sample Examination Activities: French I. Translate into English: Un jeune homme plein de passions, assis sur la bouche d’un volcan, et pleurant sur les mortels dont à peine il voyait à ses pieds les demeures, n’est sans doute, ô vieillards! qu’un objet digne de votre pitié; mais quoi que vous puissiez penser de René, ce tableau que toute ma vie j’ai eu devant les yeux une création à la fois immense et imperceptible, et un abîme ouvert â (sic) mes côtés. II. CHATEAUBRIAND (a) Write the five principal parts of the three verbs […]: vus, sortir, descend. (b) Write a synopsis of the conjugation (first person singular of each tense) of se réjouir and savoir. (c) Write the inflection of: the present indicative of boire and faire; the future of pouvoir; the present subjunctive of prendre. (d) Write the forms of the demonstrative pronouns. (e) In what ways may the use of the passive voice be avoided in French? 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 11 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM 12 H. JAY SISKIN The Report of the Committee of Twelve was unanimously adopted by the MLA at its 1899 meeting in New York (Henneman, 1900, p. 37). The Central Division of the MLA likewise adopted the report, issuing a resolution that nothing less than the elementary course should be accepted for college entrance (Hatfield, 1899, p. lxxx). The recommendations of the Committee of Twelve were incorporated textu- ally into the Report of Committee on College Entrance Requirements. Creation of the College Board Two of the active participants in the formation of the Committee of Ten—Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia and Charles Eliot of Harvard—had an even more am- bitious agenda. Speaking before the 1894 meeting of the New England Associa- tion of Colleges, Eliot proposed the formation of a board of examiners to conduct admission examinations throughout the United States. The certified results would be valid at all New England colleges and anywhere else that chose to accept them. Eliot’s proposal went nowhere: “I hardly think that the proposition was regarded by the Association of Colleges as one seriously to be taken up. At any rate it was not taken up” (cited in Fuess, 1950, p. 16). The 1899 Report of the Committee of Twelve created additional impetus for some sort of assessment procedure. The committee rejected the idea that all col- leges formulate the same entrance requirements or that all schools provide the same courses of study. Rather, the committee recommended that the colleges state their entrance requirements in terms of national “constants” or units and that the schools build their curricula from the units designed in accordance to these specifications.7 This recommendation allowed both flexibility of programs and uniformity of standards, in harmony with Eliot’s vision. The time was ripe to reintroduce the idea of a common examination for col- lege admission. The occasion was a meeting of the Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools of the Middle States and Maryland, held on December 2, 1899, III. Translation into English: (a) Here is the pen, shall I send it to her? No; do not send it to her; give it to me. (b) Cats and dogs are domestic animals. (c) You must give them some white bread and good coffee, if they have none. (d) The old man is very well this evening, although he has worked all day. (e) We have just searched for your gloves, but we do not find them in the room where you left them a quarter of an hour ago. (f) Why do we weep for mortals whose life and character we scarcely know? We always have them before our eyes. Whatever we may think of them, they are surely worthy of our pity. (p. 87) 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 12 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM A GREAT RATTLING OF DRY BONES 13 in Trenton. On the agenda was a discussion of “Uniform College Admissions Ex- aminations.” Butler had decided to present a resolution calling for the establish- ment of a college admissions board. President Eliot, although not a member of the organization, took a night train to Trenton to offer support and encouragement to Butler. Butler’s brief presentation resulted in a highly contentious exchange. At a particularly difficult turn, President Eliot rose and delivered a persuasive re- buttal to Butler’s critics. A vote was taken and the organization declared itself unanimously in favor of the establishment of a board of examiners, which evolved into the College Entrance Examination Board. Later, Butler reflected: “This might never have happened if President Eliot had not come down from Cambridge to support the proposal and make that kind of speech” (Butler, as cited in Fuess, 1950, p. 26).8 The College Entrance Examination Board of the Middle States ad- ministered its first examinations in June 1901. Among the subjects tested were French, German, Greek, and Latin. Spanish was added the following year. The ex- ams incorporated the standards set by the MLA, that is to say, those endorsed by the Report of the Committee of Twelve (Ravitch, 1995, p. 172). The Report of the Committee of Twelve did not age well. The very standards underpinning the college entrance examinations were soon considered in need of reform. Writing 13 years later, Krause (1913) recalls that the Report of the Committee of Twelve was meant only as a “beginning effort,” rather than a “perfect finality.” The Committee’s intention was that this provisional document be revised based on advances in knowledge and the accumulation of experience. This has not happened: Unfortunately, however, the committee put its approval upon old methods, upon indirect teaching of modern languages and getting at literature quickly. This one factor alone and more than all others has brought about the condition of affairs as we find them now: we see the old-time, self-complacent methodologists supposedly with the mighty, far-reaching report as their guide, persisting in the laissez-faire attitude. (Krause, 1913, p. 70) Krause insists that a revised version of the Report become a categorical impera- tive, “for times have changed and demand an adjustment to our more enlightened environment” (p. 71). Likewise, a committee was appointed at the 1909 meeting of the Central Division of the Modern Language Association in Iowa City to consider revising the Report. Its conclusions, presented at the 1910 meeting of the Association in St. Louis, favored revision. Advances in knowledge rendered the Report outmoded; it no longer represented the consensus of public opinion; and its emphasis on reading and an early study of literature was counterproductive: “it has encouraged poorly prepared teachers to turn out poorly prepared students” (pp. xlix–l). The MLA accepted the committee’s conclusions and adopted the resolution formulated by the chair of the Germanic Section, Hermann Almstedt. The reso- lution expressed “an urgent request that a similar joint committee be appointed at once to cooperate in the work of revision of the Report of the Committee of Twelve, so that at next year’s union meeting the revised Report may be acted 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 13 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM 14 H. JAY SISKIN upon” (MLA, 1901, p. 1). The documentary trail is lost at this point, but it may be inferred from later references to the Report that it persisted in its original form and still had a cadre of supporters. In 1919, the editor of the Modern Language Journal deemed it “obsolescent” (Editorial comment, p. 137). Mitchell (1931) calls it “outworn” (p. 116) and laments its continuing influence, whereas Geddes (1933) asserts that “Even today, after thirty-three years, the findings of that report are practically incontrovertible” (p. 29). There was also a larger, political signifi- cance of the Report: It was brandished as a weapon of the conservatives in their battle against the reformers. Its importance in the preparation of the college en- trance examinations enshrined the status quo. Henceforth, the ability to translate and master grammatical rules became the principal criteria for college admission (cf. Powers et al., 1971, p. 18). These early efforts at setting standards and creating articulation were based on extensive research, discussion, and collegial collaboration. The committees’ goals were ambitious, and the results deemed to be momentous. Yet within two decades, they were condemned as inadequate and outmoded. The Committee of Ten and the Committee of Twelve have been lost in our disciplinary “amnesia.” As a result, the current discussion of standards and articulation ignores over a century of thoughtful reflection. Musumeci (1997) decries our ignorance of the past and the insights it can bring to present-day concerns: “Deprived of the wis- dom that the measure of time and historical perspective affords, these profession- als are blind to the difference between the ephemeral and the durable, between the gimmicky and the effective” (pp. 4–5). The contributions to this volume address the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century from various linguistic and pedagogical frameworks. As we read them, let us reflect upon past efforts at setting standards to determine what lessons can be drawn from the ephemeral reports of the last century that will ensure enduring standards for the new millennium. Notes 1. The council further requested that the directors of the National Education As- sociation provide appropriate funding for the newly formed Committee of Ten, a request that the NEA exceptionally granted (Fuess, 1950, p. 14). 2. Radical recommendations included longer sequences of study—the introduc- tion of elective languages courses in the grammar schools beginning at age 10; and the study of up to three modern languages by the end of high school. Note that these desiderata are still being expressed among language profes- sionals to this day. 3. Indeed, this document represents one of the earliest attempts at articulation. Harvard’s president Eliot noted this in an address before the American Institute of Instruction (July 11, 1894; cited in Fuess, p. 16): On the whole the greatest promise of usefulness which I see in the Report of the Committee of Ten lies in its obvious tendency to promote cooperation among school and college teachers, and all other persons intelligently inter- ested in education, for the advancement of well-marked and comprehensive educational reforms. 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 14 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM A GREAT RATTLING OF DRY BONES 15 4. Carey later became the first professor of Law at Berkeley. He was instrumental in the founding and administration of Boalt Hall. 5. Calvin Thomas was professor of Germanic Languages at Columbia University. 6. The typical length of a recitation was 45 minutes (cf. Pringle, 1922, p. 160; Brown, 1909, p. 158). 7. These units became subsequently known as Carnegie units, after the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching specified that a unit corresponds to a course of five periods each week over one academic year (Ravitch, 1995, p. 172). 8. For a more detailed discussion of the establishment and accomplishments of the College Entrance Examination Board, see Ravitch, (1995), pp. 171–172 and Fuess (1950), pp. 11–17. References A big question for teachers. (1894, July 13). New York Times, p. 8. An important report. (1894, January 13). Outlook 49(2), p. 58. Bureau of Education. (1894). Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school studies. New York: American Book Company. Editorial Comment. (1919). The Modern Language Journal, 4, 132–137. Fuess, C. M. (1950). The college board: Its first fifty years. New York: Columbia University Press. Geddes, J. (1933). The old and the new. The French Review, 7(1), 26–38. Hagboldt, P. (1932). The best method. The Modern Language Journal, 16, 625–631. Hatfield, J. T. (1899). Discussion of some questions raised by the report of the Com- mittee of Twelve. PMLA, 14(4), pp. lxxx–lxxxi. Henneman, J. B. (1900). The seventeenth annual meeting of the Modern Language Association. Modern Language Notes, 15(2), pp. 33–38. Kliebard, H. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–1958. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Knight, E. W. (1952). Fifty years of American education: A historical review and critical appraisal. New York: Ronald Press. Krause, Carl A. (1913). The trend of modern language instruction in the United States. Educational Review, 45, 237–248. MacKenzie, J. C. (1894, August 2). The course for academies and high schools rec- ommended by the Committee of Ten. The Independent, p. 7. Mitchell, S. L. (1931). Spanish in the junior college. Hispania, 14(2), 115–120. Modern Language Association of America. (1884). Proceedings at New York, 1 (December 29, 30, 1884), pp. i–vii. Modern Language Association. (1901). Report of the Committee of Twelve of the Modern Language Association of America. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. Musumeci, D. (1997). Breaking tradition: An exploration of the historical relation- ship between theory and practice in second language teaching. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill. National Education Association. (1899). Report of Committee on college entrance requirements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Powers, J. R., Brooks, N., Gaarder, A. B., Goding, S. C., Latimer, J. F., Nionakis, J. P., et al. (1971). Professional responsibilities. In J. L. Dodge (Ed.), Northeast confer- ence on the teaching of foreign languages (pp. 15–50). Middlebury: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Inc. Price, T. R. (1901). The new function of modern language teaching. PMLA, 16, 77–91. 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 15 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM 16 H. JAY SISKIN Ravitch, D. (1995). The search for order and the rejection of conformity: Standards in American education. In D. Ravitch & M. A. Vinovskis (Eds.), Learning from the past (pp. 167–190). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Recommended by Committee of Ten: What action out to be taken by universi- ties and secondary schools to promote their introduction. (Synopsis of a paper by Professor William Carey Jones). (1895, September 21). The School Journal, 50(27), p. 246. Report of the Committee of Ten. (1895, June 29). The School Journal, 50(27), p. 718. Schmidt-Wartenberg, H. (1895). The central division of the Modern Language Associa- tion of America. PMLA, 10 (Appendix I and II. Proceedings), pp. lvii–lxiii. Thurber, C. H. (1895). The N. E. A. at Denver. The School Review, 3(7), pp. 422–433. Thurber, C. H. (1896). College entrance requirements in French and German. PMLA, 11(Appendix I and II. Proceedings), pp. xxi–xxiv. 62881_01_Ch1_p001-016.indd 16 10/8/09 3:19:33 PM