The Japan Foundation Language Center, Quarterly Newsletter
Number Thirteen, December 1995

Third Annual Summer Workshop '95
For Secondary School Teachers of Japanese: A Report*
Noriko Yokoyama, Chief Language Specialist, JFLC
Hiroko Furuyama, Lecturer, JFLC
Kimiko Kabutomori, Lecturer, JFLC
theory of the proficiency-oriented instruction before theycame to the workshop.

T

he Third Annual Workshop was held at The JapanFoundation Language Center in the summer of 1995.
There were two 8-day sessions for secondary school teachersof Japanese (Session I: June 21-29 and Session II: July 12-20).
A total of 24 teachers successfully completed the course (11participants in Session I, and 13 in Session II). Six quarter
credits from UCLA Extension were available for thoseparticipants who wanted credits.
I. Objectives
Secondary school teachers usually teach 5 hours a day for
5 days a week to be full-time. During the school year, thisbusy schedule makes teachers very difficult to devote
themselves for their own professional development, including
observing other teachers' classes, evaluating their own
teaching, and such. In addition, many secondary school
teachers of Japanese teach in isolated places and cannot network or share teaching ideas. Thus, the objectives of theworkshop were set as follows: (1) making teaching plans anddemonstrating simulated teaching, (2) self-evaluating theirown teaching, and (3) sharing ideas and experiences withother participants.
2. Content Pre-Workshop Assignments
Pre-workshop assignments had been sent two months
prior to the workshop. The assignments were to read parts
from the Omaggio's Teaching in Context (1993: pp.1-21, 7388) and complete a worksheet. The worksheet consisted ofquestions illustrated by activities related to Japanese class sothat it makes it easy for participants to understand the reading
assignments from Omaggio. The purpose of the assignments
was to familiarize the participants with practice as well as

Introduction
The participants became acquainted with one anotherthrough an ice-breaking activity, and were familiarized withthe objectives and content of the workshop.
Principles
The participants were familiarized with principles of the
proficiency-oriented instruction. First, the worksheet from the
pre-workshop assignments was reviewed along with practicalclassroom-activity demonstration. Second, Hypotheses andCorollaries (Omaggio: p.77) were discussed. Then, theparticipants discussed which Hypothesis and/or Corollaries
they would like to realize in their simulated teaching.
Structure of the lesson
The participants were familiarized with the 'Structure of thelesson' used as a framework for this workshop. It consisted ofthree stages: INTRODUCTION, ACCURACY, andFLUENCY The INTRODUCTION stage had two substages: Presentation and Recognition. Each stage wasdescribed as follows:
Structure of the lesson
Introduction<Presentation>- Provide contextualization for learning- Let learner know the functional objective of thelesson.
<Recognition>- Give learning enough 'input' so that they canperceive and abstract the learning item
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
1/10

(form/meaning/usage)
Accuracy- Make learners use the structures in a controlledway- Practice the linguistic forms so that learners
can produce and articulate the forms
comfortably to develop accuracy
Fluency-

Make learners use the language in less controlled/more realistic/authentic way
Let learners create their own language

Demonstration and Rationale
The purpose of this demonstration was to show them
what a simulated teaching would be like and show how thestages can be presented in actual teaching. The participants,
acting as students experienced a one-hour of a demonstrationof simulated teaching, covering all the stages. After thedemonstration, the rationale behind activities for each stage
was explained.
Text Analysis
First, the participants examined given textbooks carefullyin small groups. Then, they discussed each textbook withrespect to its nature, and what stagesof the 'Structure of the lesson' were sufficient and lack ofactivities. They also discussed useful parts of textbooks.
Application
Application of the principles of the proficiency-oriented
instruction for actual teaching was demonstrated anddiscussed stage by stage. Criteria to examine teaching foreach stage were presented. The following were the'Checkpoints for Each
Stage':
Check Points for Each Stage
Introduction<Presentation>- Set communicative functional objectives- Give variety of examples- Use learner’s ability to guess- Show meaning through a situation or context
likely to be encountered<Recognition>- Use a variety of practices: drills, cues, classorganization- Involve learners actively- Make opportunities to exoress their own
meaning- Correct errors when necessary in an
appropriate way
Fluency- Encourage learners to express their own
meaning- Use contexts and situations likely to be
encountered- Encourage learners to interact actively incommunication- Encourage learners to interact sponteneously- Make sure there is an information gap between
speakers- Keep the conversation flow (more than one Q &A)- Correct no error during live interactions andgive appropriate feedback afterward- Minimize teacher talkGeneral Checkpoints- Use more Japanese and less English- Make sure the purpose of each activity is clear
to the learners- Confirm the learners’ comprehenshion
After demonstration and explanation for each stage, theparticipants were assigned to design and demonstrate one or
two activities in small groups. For example, a group was
assigned to design an activity for PRESENTATION so thatstudents would be able to express their daily schedule at theend of the lesson.
Making Teaching PlanFirst, as a warm-up, groups of participants discussed what
would be a realistic outcome for a given functional objective
and designed a FLUENCY activity from the outcome as in an
outcome-based teaching plan. Demonstration of each group's
FLUENCY activity followed afterwards.
Second, "Action Research Plan" adapted from Nunan(1989) was introduced to improve teaching by following thefour steps: (1) declare what aspects you choose to focus to
improve in your own teaching, (2) implement teaching plan tokeep what you have declared in mind, (3) comment onteaching by focusing on what you have declared, and (4)reflect on your teaching after viewing your own video. They
filled out the declaration form for what aspects of teaching
they would like to improve, implemented their plan according

The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
2/10

to what they had declared.
Third, the participants started making teaching plans
individually: (a) chose and analyzed a lesson from the
textbook selected for their simulated teaching, (b)brainstormed a possible outcome, (c) designed FLUENCY
activity, and (d) designed ACCURACY andINTRODUCTION activities keeping the outcome and
FLUENCY activity in mind. In the process of making ateaching plan, the participants were instructed to check if theactivities satisfied the checkpoints.
Consulting
Each participant consulted with the teaching staff after
submitting the first draft for simulated teaching. The draft wasclosely examined using the checkpoints discussed earlier inthe Application section.
Simulated Teaching
Simulated teaching was 50-minute long covering all thestages. A 15-minute discussion followed a simulated teaching.
In the discussion, each participant commented on his/her own
teaching based on the 'Declaration form' whereas others
commented on their impressions as students, and ascolleagues based on 'Checkpoints for each stage.'Video Viewing/Self Evaluation
The participants viewed their own video and filled out the'Self Evaluation form.' The.form consisted of two parts: thefirst part was a list of points to check if they were satisfied,
and the second was to comment on their own simulatedteaching.
Discussion
The participants discussed their own teaching based onvideo-viewing and Self Evaluation. They realized what theirstrengths and weaknesses more clearly than before viewing
their own video. We heard more critical comments than theircomments immediately after their own simulated teaching.
Guest Speakers
We invited an experienced secondary-school teacher ofJapanese as a guest speaker for each session. The guest
speaker led a session on his expertise. Here are samples of
topics covered in his lecture: motivation issues, usefulactivities, and technology including laser disc, computerassisted instruction (CAl), and e-mail.
OthersThere were some additional sessions such as introductionof videos/CAl and computer/word-processing software. We
introduced materials such as new videos and CAl software
which could be used at the secondary school level. Also,
participants who hadn't been familiar with computer andJapanese word-processing software received hands-on
experience. They as well as the other participants withexperience were encouraged to use computer to write up ateaching plan.
3. Evaluation
We asked the participants to fill out a post-workshop
evaluation questionnaire. The results showed their positive
reactions to all the three objectives we set in the beginning of
the course: (1) making teaching plan and demonstrating
simulated teaching, (2) self-evaluating, and (3) sharing ideas.
In addition, many participants found the 'Structure of the lesson,' 'Checkpoints for Each Stage' and 'Consulting' mostuseful in the process of making teaching plan.
4. Evaluators
We asked Mr. Nicholas Pond from Murray High Schoolin Utah (Session I) and Mr. Kazuo Tsuda from United
Nations International School in New York (Session II) to be
the evaluator of our workshop as well as being the guest
speaker. They observed the whole 8-day workshop, evaluated,
commented and wrote a report on our workshop from thepoints of view of experienced high school teachers. Overall,
their evaluations were very positive and encouraging, and at
the same time, they gave us many concrete and practicalsuggestions. We would like to thank the two guest
speakers/evaluators for their support, enthusiasm, and goodideas.
* This report used the terms introduced mainly in the second
session of the workshop.
References
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative
Classroom. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Omaggio-Hadley, A. 993. Teaching in Context. Boston:Heinle & Heinle.
List of Participants Who Completed the Workshop
Session I
Mieko Fetlrau, Harry Ainlay Composite High School,
Alberta, CANADA
The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
3/10

Kevin Griggs, Weber High School, UT
Kiku Harvey, Longfellow Middle School, WI
Kristin Henshaw, Bambridge High School, WA
Yoshitaka Inoue, Kamiak High School, WA
Laura Lookner, Eaglecrest High School, CO
Sandra Lopez-Richter, Palm Beach County School, EL
Hirofumi Naganka, Lathrop High School, AKJohn Patrick, Provo High School, UT
Todd Stevens, Exeter Area High School, NH
Hisa Stewart, Santa Teresa High School, CAMark Kanelsuna, Kalaheo High School, HI

Session II

Nahoko Vignean, Boston Latin Academy, MA

Mieko Koike, Brian McMahon High School, CT
Nobuko Loncar, St. Andrew's Priory, HI
Chie Roessler, Williatnsville North High School, NY
Cyrus Rolbin, Phillips Academy, MA
Gloria Rozmus, Menomonee Falls High School, WI
Raymond Stein, Mt. Edgecumbe High School, AK
Yvon Tre'panier, Vancouver College, British Columbia,
CANADA
Akiko Uchiyama, Greenfield High School, WI
Laurence Wiig, South Medford High School, OR

Ikuyo Coscarant, Gilbert High School, AZ
Chikako Itoh, Sedro-Woolley High School, WA

The Report of the National Standards and Japanese Language
Education Conference 1
Hiroko Kataoka
University of OregonIn November 1995, ACTFL announced the completion of "Standards for Foreign Language
Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century." Prior to the final
compilation of the so-called national standards, Dr. Kataoka
of the University of Oregon called for a conference regarding
the national standards and Japanese language education.
Upon adjournment of the conference she reported the resultsof the conference to ACTFL. The task force adopted someparts of the results of the conference and reflected them in the
final edition of the standards.
Please note that this document shows a positive endeavor
for reinforcement of the national standards from the Japanese
language educators and not meant as mere criticism or
opposition. We appreciate the effort of the ACTFL task force
to listen to the voices of educators of the less commonly taught
languages, especially Japanese.
We are sorry to omit the "Specific Comments on Standards
and Sample Benchmarks" due to the limited space. The
complete copy, however, is available upon request.
The Conference
The National Standards and Japanese Language Education
Conference was held on April 14-15, 1995 at the JapanFoundation Language Center in Santa Monica, California.
The purposes of the conference were to examine the current
draft of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Goals forthe 21st Century, and to make concrete recommendations for
the Student Standards Task Force as feedback from a lesscommonly taught (LCT) language group for possible
integration into the final document.
The conference was supported by the Northeast Asia
Council of the Association of Asian Studies and the JapanFoundation Language Center. In addition, universities,
colleges, schools, Japanese teachers associations, andindividuals contributed generously to this project by providing
financial support so that more individuals could participate.
Participants
There were 26 participants in the conference, including
eight secondary school teachers, ten college faculty members,
five K- 12 administrators, two Japan Foundation Language
Center personnel, and one private foundation representative.
Procedure
All participants were given a copy of the March 15, 1995
draft of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Goals forthe 21st Century prior to the conference. They were directed
to read it carefully and take notes on what was usable andwhat could be changed to make it appropriate for Japanese
language instruction. All participants completed thisassignment.

The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
4/10

The conference started at 4:00 p.m. on Friday. The groupmet for two hours to discuss the general background of the
National Standards project. This session was led by Ron
Walton of the National Foreign Language Center, a memberof the Standards Task Force. Walton described the National
Standards Project as it applied to less commonly taught
foreign languages. His twenty-minute presentation was
followed by numerous questions and lively discussion.
Saturday session began at 9:00 a.m. with the participants
dividing into five small groups to discuss pros and cons of theStandards document. The groups reconvened at 11:00 a.m. toreport on the small group discussions.
The afternoon was somewhat more complicated. From
1:30 to 3:30, participants divided into two large groups,
Group A and Group B. Group A consisted of participants
who wanted to discuss strategies to utilize the National
Standards; Group B worked to formulate specific revisions
for each Standard. Group A began by conducting a strategies
brainstorming session. After about an hour, Group A finishedthis discussion, and divided into two sub-groups, to discuss
Goals 2 and 3 respectively, including suggestions for possible
revisions. The Group B participants immediately broke into
three sub-groups, and discussed Standard 1.1., 1.2., and 1.3.,
respectively. At 4:00 p.m., participants once again gathered
together to report and further discuss the issues taken up in thesmall groups.
Due to time limitations, Goals 4 and 5 were not discussed
individually.
Strengths of the National Standards
Over the course of this conference, participants identified
the following strengths of the national
Standards:
Political value. The majority of participants agreed that
the Standards provide a valuable political tool. The genericvalue of the Standards coupled with the inclusion of LCTs
indicates that LCTs are not marginal and deserve the attention
given commonly taught languages. The Standards can also
forge political alliance among all foreign languages.
Vision. The Standards provide a vision and a set ofgoals toward which to work.
Practical value. Although many participants criticized
the Standards as being "merely political" while lacking
pedagogical value, other participants felt that there waspractical value, because people will use them as a standard forevaluating Japanese programs.

Clarification of expectations. The Standards provide agood guide for language teachers, focusing on content andoutcome of teaching.
Benefits to parents and administrators. The
Standards help parents and administrators understand thebenefits of language learning, and provide realistic
expectations about foreign language instruction as well as
clarify developments in Japanese language education.
Guidelines for teacher training.
The Standards can provide guidelines for training bothteachers and teacher educators.
Foundation. The current Standards provides a solid
foundation for even better standards in the future.
Articulation. The Standards are clearly articulated,which is a must for teachers.
Specific Goals. The specific goals contained in theStandards contribute to powerful arguments when fighting for
programs.
Benchmarks. Although many criticized sample
benchmarks, others felt that they can be useful in a limitedsense. People need to understand, however, that they are"samples." Given this caveat, such benchmarks may be usefulin convincing adminis trators of the need for an early start forJapanese programs, by arguing that language instruction must
start earlier to achieve these benchmarks. The benchmarks
could also provide incentives to expand language programs.
Standards as goals. Although the Standards may beseen as "dreams," they can also encourage students to work
toward concrete goals. The Standards can also provide someaccountability for both students and teachers, as well as
setting goals for language teachers.
Early start. It is good that elementary school programs
are included. Although currently very few such programs
exist for Japanese language instruction, we may expect a risein the number of elementary programs in the near future.
High expectations. Although some participantsquestioned the extremely high expectations of the Standards,
others felt that the high standards potentially push forward theprofession by raising expectations.

The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
5/10

Concerns and Problems with the Standards Document
Over the course of the conference, participants voiced thefollowing concerns about the Standards:
Pedagogical values. The majority of participants
criticized the Standards failure to specify performance levels
or strategies for assessment as the most significant problem of
the document. They felt that, without such levels andstrategies, the standards have no pedagogical value.
Level of sample benchmarks. Participants feltthat sample benchmarks are aimed too high for Class 4
languages, especially in reading and writing.
Assumption of unrealistic amount of time.
Similarly, participants were also concerned that the Standards
assume an unrealistic amount of classroom time spent inforeign language education. Although it is good to aim high,participants felt unrealistic expectations render the aim
worthless.
Potential "mandating" problems. The document
clearly states that the Standards are voluntary, and that theyshould not be imposed upon states or the schools2. However,
the group was concerned that the document may take on theimplications ofmandate, with sample benchmarks misinterpreted as
mandatory goals. And if that were to happen, LCTs,
especially the Class 4 languages such as Japanese andChinese, become vulnerable. No school or teacher could
perform at those "mandated" levels. There was fear that
programs would be shut down as a result.
Value of benchmarks. The document explicitly statesthat benchmarks are simply samples, not for all languages,
and that the Standards are neither to be imposed upon nor
required of states or the schools 3. However, participantsfeared that, once in the hands of regional or local departmentsof education and administrators, the benchmarks would be
mistaken for goals and would be imposed on all languages,
despite the paragraph identifying cautions for LCTs. The
danger is that state education people may evaluate all
language students equally based on the benchmarks. Teachers
feared that such a practice would generate unreasonable
expectations-resulting in criticism - of Japanese programs. (Infact, even many participants in this conference started
confusing the standards, goals, and benchmarks. And these
are the people who have studied the document very

thoroughly and have discussed it extensively. One canimagine what would happen to the uninitiated!)Single entry point vs. multiple entry points.
Participants felt that it would be useless for the Standards toassume a single entry point at K for Japanese (or other LCT)
language instruction, since there are hardly any K- 12
Japanese language programs in the United States at this time.
The majority of the pre-college Japanese programs are 9-12
only; therefore, the benchmarks as written are irrelevant, evenafter making adjustments to suit Japanese, as long as they
assume that the students have had eight years of Japanese by
the start of 9th grade, when in reality students have had none.
In addition, most current Japanese pre-college programs offer
only two or three years of instruction.
Written language. The biggest problem participants
identified in the sample benchmarks concerned the treatmentof the written language (reading and writing). The mostdifficult aspect of Japanese is learning to read and write.
Participants felt that some changes needed to be made in thestandards and benchmarks that deal with reading, writing, andthe use of written materials for languages with non-Roman
orthographies.
Teacher certification issues. Some participants fearedthat the Standards could be unfairly used as a basis for teacher
certification. Sample benchmarks imply that teachers are
expected to possess much higher proficiency levels in theforeign language they teach than they currently do. Since few
Japanese programs currently exist at the K- 12 level, those
who complete teacher training programs in Japanese in thenext decade are unlikely to attain proficiency much higher
than the highest Standards benchmarks. In addition,
secondary school teachers were particularly concerned about
the advanced literary background implied by the Standards.
Such expectations could discourage non-native speakers frombecoming foreign language teachers, especially teachers ofJapanese.
Learning scenarios. Many Japanese teachers found thesample learning scenarios difficult to apply to LCT languages.
Due to time limitations, those scenarios were not discussed indetail. However, most of the issues raised for the sample
benchmarks also apply to the learning scenarios.
Suggested Changes
During the course of the conference, participants offeredvarious suggestions for changes to the Standards document.

The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
6/10

Some were general comments, others specific. For the
purpose of this report, they have been divided into three
categories: general suggestions, suggestions for applying theStandards to Japanese, and specific suggestions for each goaland sample benchmark.
General Suggestions for changes:
General suggestions and requests for changes can besummarized as follows:• Shorten and simplify the document.
• Rewrite the document in better English.
• Provide a separate version without benchmarks foradministrators. Some participants suggested that there ought
to be two versions of the document: one version, foradministrators and parents, with goals and standards only, andthe other for teachers, which would include sample
benchmarks and sample learning scenarios.
• Develop supplemental versions of the Standards foreach language, with sample benchmarks and learning
scenarios.
• If sample benchmarks are to be included in the main
document, specify that the sample benchmarks are for
Spanish, French, and German so as to clarify that they are
NOT for Class 4 (or any other) languages.
• If sample benchmarks are to be included, develop
multiple entry levels with introductory, intermediate, andadvanced (or whatever the wording may be) benchmark
samples, rather than 4th, 8th and 12th grade. In LCTs,
including Japanese, few K-12 programs exist (a situation
which is expected to persist in the near future); therefore thewhole effort of constructing grade-level benchmarks may beof very little value-if not wasted or even harmful-for LCT
languages.
• Include discussion of the class time required to reachsample benchmarks so no one misunderstands the
expectations.
• Assess the applicability of the standards/bench-marks
before publishing the document. See how many students
would/could actually meet the standards/benchmarks.
• Organize a task force to develop sample benchmarksfor LCTs, for each language (Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, etc.),
or for each Class of languages (Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class
4).
• Adjust the Standards to each individual language, tobetter suit its specific needs.
• Eliminate learning scenarios; they are confusing andbiased towards MCTs.
• Rewrite the LCT section to address the very realdifferences between LCT and MCT in language teaching andlearning. Simply stating the "greater challenge" for LCTs is
not acceptable; explicit substantiation is necessary, including
such issues as the differences in writing systems and culture
information. (See the next section, Suggestions for
Applying the National Standards to Japanese.) In
addition, a paragraph on why some languages carry
unique problems should be added. Further elaboration could
be provided by each language, state, or school district,including sample benchmarks.
Suggestions for Applying the National Standards toJapanese:
One group devoted time to brainstorming strategies for
applying the National Standards in Japanese language
instruction. The participants came up with several strategies
and suggestions to be included in the paragraph for LCTs
(page 10 of the Standards document) which would make thecurrent Standards usable in Japanese instruction. The groupdecided that the following ought to be considered:• Many LCTs have writing systems that are not phonetic
and therefore require much more time for students to attainproficiency in than in MCTs. The Standards should explicitly
consider the difference in orthographic symbols.
• LCTs generally do not share cognate vocabulary withother languages.
• LCTs involve teaching about cultures that differ
considerably from those of American English and themainstream
Europeanlanguages.
The
culturalappropriateness of functions such as persuasion or debate iscomplex and unfamiliar, and must be taught as part of thelanguage. It is also important to address the stereotypes
learners may have about LCT cultures.
• Youth culture-and the culture as a whole-is rapidlychanging. Since many areas lack large Japanese communities,
it takes more effort and time to teach about the culture. The
specific components of culture need to be addressed in theStandards.
• The Standards document should clearly explain the
differences that exist between the written and spoken
communication styles. Differences observed in conversationaccording to such factors as age and social status should also
be acknowledged.
• Issues concerning the teaching of the written language
should be integrated into the document; it will be harder for
LCTs to meet benchmarks because of the difficulty oflearning the written language.
• The teacher-student ratios must be lower for LCT
classes.
• Because authentic materials are difficult to obtain,

The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
7/10

classes take more time to plan and develop.
• LCTs require a longer commitment from all concerned,
including a longer commitment of administrative funding.
The group suggested a need for Japanese-specificguidelines. Since many of the participants are also membersof state-level task forces working on guidelines, it wassuggested that some of them get together in the near future
and work on the Japanese-specific document 4.
Participants also reinforced the feeling that the Standards
should concentrate on the 9-12 level, since so little Japanese
instruction currently occurs at the K-8 levels. At the sametime, participants recommended learning more about K-8
programs, examining the Australian guidelines since they
appear to be further ahead of the U.S. in terms of pre-college
Japanese language education.
General Observations 5
I would like to conclude this report with my own
observations of the discussions and group work at theconference. Some may be strongly relevant to
the writing of the Standards; others are simply a reference. I
believe they all have something to say about the document
and the making of it.
• Many of the positive comments about the document
came from the secondary school teachers themselves.
• Many participants confused the goals, standards, andbenchmarks. This observation repeats a previous comment,
but I would like to emphasize the fact that people do confuse
them. As mentioned before, the participants in this conference,
despite having studied the document very carefully, confusedthese terms in the midst of heated discussions. During suchdiscussions some were saying that the standards were too
difficult, although what they were actually referring to were
the benchmarks. This is a good indication that others,
including school districts, administrators, and parents, WILL
confuse them, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This
also led me to support the suggestion that each language add
its own sample benchmarks.
• There were numerous criticisms of the benchmarks at
the beginning, but as each group went through them item by
item, many were accepted as is or with minor changes inwording (which could, nevertheless, imply very importantchanges).
• We did not have enough time to go over learning
scenarios, but I believe the same kinds of problems andarguments would be seen there as well. I would like the task

force to weigh the pros and cons of generic sample
benchmarks and learning scenarios in the document. If they
are included, I would suggest two things: one, having separate
documents for different audiences (the complete document
for teachers, and a shorter version with the bare basicswithout sample benchmarks and learning scenarios-for
administrators, school districts, and parents); and the other,
providing a very detailed, fully developed section (rather thana mere paragraph) for LCTs.
• Seriously consider multiple entry points. I would likereemphasize the importance of considering multiple entry
points in writing up benchmarks and learning scenarios. All
participants understood that the Standards Taskoforce
probably will not change the 4th, 8th, and 12th Gradebenchmarks, but a different type of division would be far
superior for LCTs, which are extremely unlikely to have K-12
programs. If ACTFL wants the LCT community to accept theStandards, something will have to be done about the entry
point issue. Again, a separate document for each language
may solve the problem. Otherwise, however, I am afraid thatsetting up multiple entry points may be the only way in which
the LCTs would seriously consider supporting the Standards.

Footnotes
1 I would like to thank the following individuals for taking
notes during the conference: Leslie Birkland; Chris Brockett;
Tim Cook; Carl Falsgraf; Tim Hart; Kathleen Streit; YasuHiko Tohsaku; and Yasuko Ito Watt.
2,3 One participant offered the following comment in his
review of the fmal draft of this report:
Fundamental contradiction. "Standards" implies amandate and "benchmarks" implies a goal.
Standards that don't have to be met are notstandards. Benchmarks that do not represent a goal
are not benchmarks. These paragraphs suggest thatthose who make these criticisms didn't read the
document or mismterpret-ed it. Rather I think thesefolks are pointing out a contradiction in the
document.
4 A group has already begun work on a model of state standards which can serve as a reference for other states writing
standards for Japanese.
5 Please note that these observations are my own. They areneither the consensus of the entire group nor were they discussed by the participants.

The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
8/10

The Japanese Magnet Program (JMP)
Deanne Baizer
Resource Teacher
Richmond Elementary School
Portland, Oregon
BRIEF HISTORYI

n 1986 a group of parents met with Portland Public
School's Curriculum Department and requested that theirstudents have an opportunity to develop a second language
through their elementary years. Citing the successes of French,
Spanish, and German Immersion style education in North
America, the parents were pressing to have Japanese. This
was as a result of Pacific Rim relationships booming in thebusiness and tourist world. Reluctant to pioneer the district's
first immersion attempt in an elementary language that no one
else was doing, Spanish was selected. At its successful
implementation, a task force of school district personnel andJapanese community advisory board was established tolaunch a Japanese Elementary Immersion program in 1989.
Several important decisions were made at that time that
helped shape the future for the Japanese Magnet Program.
The district would choose a centrally located school and offer
50% Japanese and 50% English instruction beginning with all
day Kindergarten. Students would represent all areas of thecity (NW, NE, SW, SE); diverse ethnicities; and reasonablemale, female balance; a stratified random sample selection (i.e.
lottery by categories). Families must be residents of Portland
Public School District and the child must be five on or before
September 1st of the entering year.
Richmond Elementary School, with a supportive andinnovative, third generation Japanese American principal,
Renee Ito-Staub, was designated as the host school. It
welcomed 54 kindergartners in September 1989 and has
grown by one grade level each year to accommodate 320
Kindergarten through fifth grade students in 1995, with
twelve energetic Japanese speaking staff and six excellent
English teachers.
In 1993-94 the planning for articulation to the middle
school took place with a committee including teachers,
administrators and parents. Mt. Tabor Middle School was
identified as the suitable site. Just this September it launched
the new phase of the Japanese Magnet Program with sixth
grade. A generous grant from the Japan Foundation will
support the three year implementation. The students now

experience their humanities block in Japanese which is about
40% of their day. Planning for the High School years will
begin in 1996.
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Althoujgh wonderful Japanese materials exist, it has beena challenge at each grade level to identify, gather, and create
appropriate elementary classd room materials.* We begin byhaving the English teacher and Japanese teacher (an"arranged marriage") planning appropriate themes together.
These themes will encompass the required grade level
curriculum for Oregon schools, with strands for math, science,social studies, language arts, multiculture and creative arts alltieing in. Students have the opportunity to develop vocabulary
in both languages with complementary lessons. As
appropriate to the yearly themes, Japanese culture is also
integrated.
Kindergartners discover in their transportation studies thata school bus can't take them from Portland to Japan. Whilethey learn about boats and jets etc. they pretend to travel toJapan and pack a suitcase with things they need. They see thevideo about Sesame Street's Big Bird and his visit to Japan.
Learning through the daily calendar, songs, stories and games
they play, the children are able to identify vocabulary with
Hiragana sounds and recognize the symbols.
When they move on to first grade, they learn to read andwrite Hiragana while exploring Japanese courtesies andholidays woven in with seasons, science, and social studies. In
Second grade they map the Richmond neighborhood andcompare it with a Japanese neighborhood. They also explore
stories about animals and plants while learning to read andwrite katakana.
Third graders begin to find that Portland has a lot of ties toJapan through its sister city, Sapporo. They compare a
Japanese style garden with the International Rose Testing andShakespeare style garden that Washington Park allows for
onsite exploration. Kanji tests and journal writing take a more
serious literacy turn with increasing homework requirements.
Hands on calligraphy every week make it all exciting.

The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
9/10

Environmental studies give fourth graders a chance toexplore "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" in both an Oregon context
and that of "sister" state, Toyama. They also explore their
many "Trails to Oregon" and find that the Japanese are notnewcomers but have been active and important contributors
to our state for many years. They find that creative writing inJapanese can be fun too as they explore elements of Native
American folk tales.
The big payoff of Elementary Japanese Immersion for thefifth graders is anticipating a summer trip to Japan. Whilelearning about The United States through colonial to Native
American and modern architecture, they also explore thetraditional Japanese house. Beginning to write to pen pal at
Katoh Gakuen's English Immersion Program in Numazu,
Shizuoka at the foothills of Mt. Fuji, motivates them toexpand and improve their functional use of Japanese while
they anticipate the experience of a life time.
The involvement of the fifth grade parents and Oyanokai(JMP parent organization) did extensive coordination andfundraising to ensure that all students wanting to participate in
the trip to Japan were able to do so. They selected the slogan"Our Dreams Take Flight". The thrill of success has been
experienced by students, families and staff. When the new
middle school students returned to Richmond to share their
pictures, omiyage and experiences in Japanese with the fourthand fifth graders, this writer almost burst with emotion. It was
especially moving to hear a summary statement that the worst
thing about the trip to Japan was "Sayonara"! The foundationin Japanese immersion is being laid for a lifetime of learning!
* The NEH sponsored Japanese Immersion Thematic
Integration Workshop at Pacific University in Forest Grove,
Oregon this past summer provided participants opportunity todevelop many themes that are to be shared after trial implementation this school year.

The Breeze, No. 13 (December 1995)
10/10