|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THIS special twentieth-anniversary issue of the ADFL Bulletin affords an ideal opportunity to assess the current state of foreign language education in the United States. The ADFL Bulletin has seen some of the “worst of times” and the “best of times,” and it now finds languages in the United States approaching a high point. If we are astute enough to recognize how this incipient golden age is developing, to continue our effective promotion of policies that encourage language study and international education, and to address immediate and future challenges, we may be able to project the “best of times” into the next century.
A recent article in Stars and Stripes proclaimed “Language Study Booms” (Mitgang). Another, in the New York Times , detailed “Why Foreign Languages Are Relevant Again” (Rohter). The latest report from the Modern Language Association informs us that college language enrollments are at the highest level in fourteen years (Brod). According to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, public school language enrollments are the largest they have been in seventy years (Dandonoli).
As a long-time advocate of a strong federal presence in international education, Senator Paul Simon, Democrat of Illinois, has succeeded in focusing attention on foreign languages as an issue in the 1988 presidential campaigns. Last March President Reagan proclaimed that “we can literally no longer afford to lag behind the rest of the world in foreign language instruction.” An omnibus education bill containing provisions for foreign language summer institutes, model elementary and secondary language programs, and foreign language teacher awards was approved by Congress in late April and was signed into law on 28 April 1988. Also, within a week of the education bill, Congress passed an omnibus trade bill containing the International Education for a Competitive America Act, which has numerous provisions supporting foreign language education. With these bills, the United States Congress has created over the last few years close to two dozen new programs that broadly affect language studies and international education. More important, it has appropriated funds to pay for about half these incremental programs.
The most recent survey of state activities by the Joint National Committee for Languages (JNCL) has again revealed impressive movements in the states to improve and increase international awareness and second language learning (Draper). The study of foreign languages has continued to increase dramatically across the country, with sixteen states now having a foreign language requirement in the public schools and twenty-three states reinstituting college and university requirements. Numerous national reports from policy groups like the National Governors' Association, the Southern Governors' Association, and the Council of Chief State School Officers continue to call for improved international awareness by our citizens and increased international education for our students.
Finally, the need to improve our national language capabilities has attracted the attention and support of private foundations, resulting in such valuable accomplishments as the Rockefeller fellowships for high school foreign language teachers to study abroad and the Dodge Foundation's support for model programs in Chinese. A number of new coalitions and organizations have sprung up to further support international education, including the Coalition for the Advancement of Foreign Languages and International Studies (CAFLIS), the Alliance for Education in Global and International Studies (AEGIS), the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC), the International Exchange Association (IEA), and the not entirely peripheral English Plus Information Clearing-house (EPIC).
As a policy organization, the JNCL and its related advocacy organization, the National Council for Languages and International Studies (NCLIS), 1 have attempted to represent their thirty-six member organizations in each of these areas. They have ensured that the national print media and the major television networks are aware of increased enrollments, the proficiency movement, the need for foreign languages in the elementary schools, language teacher shortages, and other professional concerns as detailed in recent policy statements. JNCL has not hesitated to discuss languages and international knowledge as legitimate national security issues and as important factors in international economic competitiveness. It has worked closely with the governors' associations, the chief state school officers, state boards of education (Williams), and other groups concerned with educational reform to see that their studies and reports give adequate attention to the international dimensions of education.
NCLIS has played a major role in drafting and supporting such legislation as the omnibus education bill, the international education provisions of the omnibus trade hills, revisions in Title VI of the Higher Education Act, the critical foreign languages provisions of the Education for Economic Security Act, and the Japanese Technical Literature Act.
The council has also supported a good deal of legislation that has yet to be realized, including the Bureau of Translation Services Act, the Foreign Language Assistance Act, and the American Defense Education Act. Defending funding for existing programs and acquiring funding for new programs in a deficit-conscious, budget-cutting climate have been continuing priorities.
The regular JNCL surveys of state activities have provided background information for the Southern Governors' Association, the National Governors' Association, the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, and other groups. In turn, the council has been able to use their studies to further promote public interest and legislation at the state level. Working with the National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages (NCSSFL) and state foreign language associations, it has begun to “map” state activities to identify accomplishments that provide models for other states or a possible basis for federal legislation; these include the Tennessee Foreign Language Institute, the California International Studies Project, and the Florida Latin America-Caribbean Scholarship Program.
JNCL and a number of its member organizations have been actively involved in the creation of the English Plus Information Clearinghouse, recognizing that limited and incorrect information about the English-only movement threatens all forms of second language study and increases the dangers of linguistic chauvinism and xenophobia. They have been participant-observers in the creation of CAFLIS, hoping to contribute to and help shape the discussion of our national needs in languages and international studies. They have also paid close attention to some of the other recent movements and coalitions, asking useful questions about rationales, issues, constituencies, and agendas.
A number of observers have become fond of telling us that foreign languages and international studies currently are experiencing an “open moment” in our history. If this is the case, and I think it may be, it is not the result of serendipity or divine intervention. It is a direct result of organization, expertise, commitment, and hard work by our professional associations and their constituents. The accomplishments discussed above have required taking risks, making compromises, and expending very limited financial resources. They have required persuading the media that there is something newsworthy about what we say and do. Our associations have had to convince the general education community and major policy organizations that language study is a basic part of education and that international knowledge is a necessity of our age. They have had to sell Congress, state legislatures, chief executives, and local political units on the importance of language and international skills in addressing educational, security, and economic needs at all levels. Most important, they have had to show students and parents that a knowledge of foreign languages and other countries is a valuable (and even an economically rewarding) asset in a shrinking world. This effort has been largely responsible for the dramatic growth in enrollments, but increased requirements, aided and abetted by good teaching and innovative programs, have certainly played a role as well. Anyone who has attended a state foreign language teacher association meeting within the last five years could not avoid noting a renewed enthusiasm and excitement among language teachers. The proficiency movement, immersion programs, increased exchange opportunities, computer-assisted instruction, satellite technology, and even the sale of Toyotas, among other things, have increased interest in languages and international studies.
To capitalize on the accomplishments of the last few years, we need to understand how they have been brought about. We also have to realize that this “open moment” is just the beginning and that, if we are to take advantage of it, we must squarely face the challenges it poses.
First, we must keep in mind that the policy process is incremental and long-term. While the time is certainly right for legislation supporting international education, the major factor governing all congressional decisions right now is a huge deficit. The authorization of new federal programs supporting language education has proved much easier to achieve than has the appropriation of funds to pay for them. Real results, defined as funded programs, have been accomplished primarily by amending existing legislation or by “tagging along” on other broad-based omnibus bills. Programs serving our ends have been created as readily in the areas of defense, diplomacy, and even commerce as in the area of education.
It is perhaps telling that current proposals for a National Foundation for Foreign Languages and International Studies have yet to elicit anything more than mild interest on Capitol Hill. The proponents of such a foundation must carefully assess the impact such a creation would have on existing programs and funding. Would an attempt to combine current programs under a single federal umbrella compromise and reduce support for these programs? Or would a foundation, as its advocates suggest, develop a strong constituency and a national presence comparable to the National Science Foundation? Instead of looking to a single entity such as a foundation, foreign language professionals, in particular, would do well to take ESL (English as a Second Language) programs as a federally supported model. Currently, federal support for ESL approaches $1 billion, but it is diffused among numerous programs built into adult education, compensatory education, migrant education, bilingual education, libraries, exchanges, immigration, and so on.
Regardless of the administration, the federal deficit will prove a serious obstacle for the next decade, making new, highly visible programs difficult to develop. This is not to deny the worth of a well-conceived foundation that addresses a clear, specific national need that is not currently being answered. But such an initiative is only one among many that would encourage national support for languages and international studies. It should not lessen our ongoing efforts to expand existing programs and to devise new incremental legislation to create summer institutes, provide technical materials, sponsor teacher awards, and set up model programs. Perhaps we should consider a more modest approach to the idea of a foundation, such as a fund to focus on the interface between languages and international studies or between international education and business needs; as a viable legislative alternative.
Second, public policy, far from being an exact science, is based primarily on compromise and cooperation. Various studies and reports may or may not provide a basis for policy. Hundreds of pages of discourse on the value of international knowledge is only so much blue sky if it cannot he translated into specific proposals. It is already clear that governors, state legislatures, and even the US Congress are making policies that affect such concerns as our requirements, teacher training, foreign students, and professional standards. We can be part of this process if we have specific recommendations and can demonstrate unity in our requests, but—with or without our participation—a number of decisions will he made, and are being made.
Legitimate differences of opinion are the essence of academic endeavors, but they may impede efforts to produce public policies. Generally, at the policy level, what benefits Japanese also benefits German; what supports foreign languages also supports area studies; what promotes international education also promotes educational exchanges. Within the next few years our profession will face some major challenges involving serious foreign language teacher shortages, elementary school programs, teacher qualifications, interdisciplinary study, proficiency testing, and other concerns. While the state activities and the foundation-supported programs will provide some opportunities for experimentation and even the luxury of error, our basic responsibility for the future will be to recognize “what works” (in the words of the secretary of education, William J. Bennett) and to promote it effectively.
In its 1985 report, the Council of Chief State School Officers called for leadership in the area of international education. The problem, as I see it, is not leadership. Real and potential leaders are abundant. Nor is the problem followers. There are many dedicated, committed language professionals who wish to be involved and active in affecting the public policies that determine how they earn their livelihood. Leadership and unity may have been our problem ten years ago. Now our problem is coordination. The language community has been very effective in the policy arena because it has used JNCL and NCLIS to determine and then to promote policies. Similarly, the community of organizations concerned with student and teacher exchanges have used the Liaison Group for International Educational Exchange to discuss, and then act on, policy considerations. Both groups have been able to recognize their mutual interests and act on them individually and in unison. Now it is time to broaden the circle, recognizing that we face challenges that affect our mutual interests and that can most effectively be addressed through cooperation, compromise, and coordination.
The author is Executive Director of the Joint National Committee for Languages and the National Council for Languages and International Studies.
1 NCLIS was formerly the Council for Languages and Other International Studies (CLOIS) and should not he confused with NCFLIS (the National Council on Foreign Language and International Studies), which joined with Global Perspectives in Education (GPE) to create the American Forum.
Brod, Richard I. “Foreign Language Enrollments in US Institutions of Higher Education—Fall 1986.” ADFL Bulletin 19.2 (1988): 39–44. [Show Article]
Council of Chief State School Officers. International Education: Position Paper and Recommendations. Washington: Council of Chief State School Officers, 1985.
Dandonoli, Patricia. “Report on Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1985.” New York: ACTFL, 1987.
Draper, Jamie B. “State Activities Update: Focus on Exchange.” Washington: Joint National Committee for Languages, 1987.
Mitgang, Lee. “Language Study Booms.” Stars and Stripes 1 Feb. 1988: 14.
National Governors' Association. Educating Americans for Tomorrow's World: State Initiatives in International Education. Washington: National Governors' Assn., 1987.
Reagan, Ronald. “National Foreign Language Week.” Proclamation. (Washington: White House, 1988).
Rohter, Larry. “Why Foreign Languages Are Relevant Again.” New York Times 4 Jan. 1987, education sec.: 33–34.
Southern Governors' Association. Advisory Council on International Education. International Education: Cornerstone of Competition. Washington: Southern Governors' Assn., 1986.
Williams, Cathleen. “International Studies and Foreign Language Programs: A Policymaker's Guide.” Washington: National Assn. of State Boards of Education, 1986.
© 1988 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
