19, no. 2 (January 1988): 1-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
No Works Cited |
|
From the Editor
Cheryl A. Demharter
When I initiated this editor's column last year, my main message was the necessity of close collaboration and cooperation among all individuals and groups involved in foreign language education. Now, as I prepare to leave the MLA to undertake a few years of international travel, support for the vast range of nationwide efforts to strengthen foreign language education remains as viral as ever.
Although the One-hundredth Congress has yet to fund the many new provisions for foreign language education that were approved last year under Title VI of the Higher Education Act, legislators are working to provide support for elementary and secondary education while at the same time promoting economic competitiveness. For example, last June the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee approved a $1 billion package of education initiatives to be included in a massive trade bill aimed at improving the United States's competitiveness in the world economy. Among the many provisions of this bill were $400 million to provide aid to disadvantaged children in secondary schools; $350 million to upgrade elementary and secondary school instruction in computer use, foreign languages, mathematics, and sciences; and $100 million to increase the use of satellites to train students at small schools in foreign languages, mathematics, and science.
As of this writing, however, the trade bill is in conference committee, where legislators attempt to work out the differences between the Senate and the House versions. According to J. David Edwards, executive director of the Joint National Committee for Languages (JNCL), it is probable that a compromise will not be reached and that the bill will die in committee. Anticipating the bill's demise, the House has sought to prevent the loss of the education provisions by passing an omnibus education bill that reauthorizes several provisions for elementary and secondary education from its version of the trade bill. The Senate also intends to pass an omnibus education bill containing all or most of the education provisions from the Senate version of the trade bill. These provisions would probably include $35 million for model programs at the elementary and secondary school levels, $1 million for outstanding-teacher awards in mathematics, science, and foreign languages, $10 million for the development of literacy programs, and $100 million for the satellite-instruction (“star schools”) project proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts). According to Edwards, if both versions of the omnibus education bill make it to a conference committee during the 1987 legislative session, differences between the two versions are quite likely to be resolved.
Of course, the economic concerns mirrored in the stock market's recent decline might postpone funding of these programs until the United States is on a surer economic footing. We must still, however, continue to remind Congress of the vital importance of a populace with international linguistic and cultural awareness.
The JNCL has recently taken a major step in this direction by releasing a position paper entitled “Global Competence: Education for the Future,” which was approved by the more than thirty language and international studies organizations nationwide that make up its membership. The position paper identifies essential educational goals for the next decade and into the twenty-first century and offers specific recommendations in five major categories: (1) national leadership, (2) foundations for the future, (3) incentives for excellence, (4) language competence, and (5) international education for economic competitiveness. The JNCL report stresses the importance of providing adequate funding for pre- and in-service teacher training; materials development, especially in the less commonly taught languages; educational research; and teacher exchanges. It recommends continued research on standards and proficiency testing, the development of up-to-date technological skills and materials, and cooperation among language professionals, educational organizations, and policymakers.
Such efforts to make the profession's needs known at the federal legislative level are crucial for promoting foreign language education in the United States and developing intercultural tolerance and understanding. At a time when increased emphasis is being placed on foreign language education, we need to continue working together to enhance language teaching and encourage the recruitment of language and literature specialists. This major undertaking is essential to the healthy future of our profession.
© 1988 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
ADFL Bulletin 19, no. 2 (January 1988): 1-1 |
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
No Works Cited |
|
