ADFL Bulletin
10, no. 3 (March 1979): 7-8
To the Editor Search
Table of Contents
Previous Article Next Article
No Works Cited

STRENGTHENING LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES

Richard I. Brod

IT is significant that the appointment of the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies coincides almost exactly with the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the National Defense Education Act. Times have changed since 1958, and with them national priorities and, indeed, the very concept of “defense.” Yet it is not saying too much to suggest that, even within the relatively limited charge of the President's Commission, there is a mandate for asserting leadership and for defining needs and priorities for the mainstream of American education in the last quarter of this century.

Foreign language professionals are concerned with the improvement of language training and international studies as part of the general education of all citizens, in elementary and secondary schools as well as in colleges and in adult education. The rationale for this concern is set forth succinctly in the final report (published in September 1978) of the MLA/ACLS Task Force on the Commonly Taught Languages, whose meetings and research were supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The report states:

Because foreign language study facilitates communication among language groups, lays the foundation for an understanding and appreciation of cultures, and contributes to basic linguistic skills, we believe that:
All students in American high schools should have the opportunity to study at least one foreign language.
Every American college graduate should be able to read and converse in a foreign language.
All adults in the United States should have readily available opportunities to acquire or improve knowledge of a foreign language. 1

To achieve these objectives, the Task Force on the Commonly Taught Languages and its counterpart group, the Task Force on the Less Commonly Taught Languages, have issued a set of specific recommendations, addressed primarily to the language teaching profession itself, and disseminated through its leading organizations. The Task Force reports attempt to achieve a consensus on ends and means in language instruction within a diverse profession that cultivates a wide range of interests and educational points of view. Further efforts are under way to secure endorsement of these objectives and recommendations from as many professional organizations as possible. The members of the MLA/ACLS Task Forces consider consensus within the profession indispensable to the success of any long-range effort to strengthen and expand language competence in the United States.

We believe that the President's Commission, in its efforts to fulfill the mandate of the Executive Order of 21 April 1978, Sec. 2 (b) (1), “to recommend means for directing public attention to the importance of foreign language and international studies,” will be articulating questions similar to those considered by the MLA/ACLS Task Force on the Commonly Taught Languages. We also believe that it should formulate similar objectives. Such a statement of objectives would form the cornerstone of a badly needed national policy on language study, a policy that would define the “national interest” in language study for the 1980s.

To achieve the support of educational decision makers, we recommend further that in its deliberations the Commission seek the testimony and active participation of academic administrators at both secondary and postsecondary institutions: principals, superintendents, chief state school officers, school-board officers, college and university presidents and deans, and the principal organizations representing these groups. The secondary and postsecondary levels are of equal importance to foreign language instruction; indeed, registrations in public secondary schools are four times greater than in colleges and universities. The schools, moreover, continue to be the principal source of language instruction as part of general education. For this and other compelling reasons, foreign language professionals are agreed that the principal arena for improving instruction must be the schools, with support from appropriate personnel in colleges and universities.

The role of college faculty in strengthening language study in the schools requires closer definition, and it has in fact been the object of attention of the MLA/ACLS Task Forces. To foster a spirit of partnership and mutual support is one goal of the Task Forces' long-range effort to improve collaboration among the segments of the teaching profession. Affirmation of this principle by the Commission would give a welcome impetus to our work.

Since the Commission, as mandated by the Executive Order, Sec. 2 (b) (3), will also turn its attention to “foreign language [and] area studies programs” and will “recommend desirable levels and kinds of support for each that should be provided by the public and private sectors,” we believe the following questions are worthy of the Commission's attention:

  1. How can institutions, businesses, language educators, and federal, state, and local government work together to develop incentives for students to acquire competence in foreign languages?
  2. What can be done to make language instruction accessible and flexible enough to meet both general and special needs? How can individuals be helped to maintain the language skills they acquire?
  3. What can be done to expand the present limited federal commitment to educational exchanges (to include high school and undergraduate study abroad) and research and training in language and area studies?
  4. What can be done to extend the present federal commitment to international studies to education in schools, community and four-year colleges, and adult programs? What can be done to ensure long-term support for such programs in the private sector?
  5. What can be done to promote language study and increased sensitivity to cultural diversity within the context of humanities education? How can language educators be helped to develop competence in teaching culture?
  6. How can the educational process in foreign language study be converted from one that measures (and rewards) time spent to one that measures proficiency attained? What can be done to standardize the evaluation of student achievement in order to avoid loss of time and effort and motivation when students transfer from one educational level to another? How can such efforts toward standardization be applied to the preparation of foreign language teachers for schools and colleges?
  7. What can be done to promote viable language instruction in elementary schools? Can the federal government be asked to support research on the role of foreign language study in developing basic skills in English?
  8. What can be done to increase the availability of instruction in the most widely used of the less commonly taught languages—specifically, in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian?

In response to the issues raised by these questions, the Commission should, we believe, consider recommending the following actions at the federal level:

  1. Congress should authorize and appropriate funds for citizen education in language and international studies under the National Defense Education Act, Title VI, Sec. 603.
  2. Research funds under NDEA Title VI should be made available for the development and refinement of proficiency tests in foreign language skills.
  3. Congress should increase its level of appropriations under the Fulbright-Hays Act.
  4. The National Endowment for the Humanities should support the development of programs in the teaching of culture, including the training of teachers.
  5. The National Institute of Education should support research in elementary school language instruction.
  6. Funds should be appropriated under NDEA Title VI or other authority for the expansion of secondary and postsecondary instruction in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian.

Foreign language professionals look forward to working with the Commission as it examines the nation's needs for training in languages and international studies and formulates recommendations for future policy in this area of education. We stand ready to provide information and support.

A position paper presented to the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies, October 1978. The author is Director of Foreign Language Programs for the Modern Language Association.

NOTE

1 “Report of the Task Force on the Commonly Taught Languages,” ADFL Bulletin , 10, No. 1 (Sept. 1978), 2.

© 1979 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.

ADFL Bulletin 10, no. 3 (March 1979): 7-8

Table of Contents
Previous Article Next Article
No Works Cited