|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
1
Introduction
A
pervasive lack of knowledge about foreign cultures and foreign lan-
guages1 in this country threatens the security of the United States
as well as its ability to compete in the global marketplace and pro-
duce an informed citizenry. The U.S. education system places little value
on speaking languages other than English and on understanding cultures
other than one’s own. Less than half (43.4 percent) of all U.S. high school
students were enrolled in a foreign language class in 2000; even fewer study
a language when they move on to college (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2005). In 2002, less than 10 percent of all college students were
enrolled in foreign language courses (Welles, 2004). Similarly, students in
the United States tend to understand less about the beliefs, cultures, and
history of other nations than their foreign counterparts.
At the same time, the need for language and area expertise is compel-
ling. The federal government has experienced the lack of foreign language
experts with appropriate cultural competence for some time. A particularly
prescient research report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education
(ED) and published August 2001 stated (Brecht and Rivers, 2000, p. 2):
The United States today faces a critical shortage of linguistically compe-
tent professionals across federal agencies and departments responsible for
national security. The inability of intelligence officers, military personnel,
disease specialists, law enforcement officers and other federal employees to
1 Although there is debate in this country about the appropriate term for languages other
than English, with some supporting use of “world languages,” we have adopted the term
“foreign languages” since it is used in the committee’s charge.
OCR for page 16
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
understand information from foreign sources and to interact with foreign
nationals in virtually every country on the globe presents a threat to their
mission and to the well-being of the nation.
The report went on to point out what it characterized as a severe
shortage of foreign language professionals in the 80 federal departments
or agencies that have a need for them. But foreign language professionals
are needed not only in federal bureaucracies. People with language skills
and area expertise also are needed to ensure the nation’s ability to compete
economically. Increasing foreign competition and declining market shares
for U.S. products highlight the need for globally competent business rep-
resentatives. According to statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. exports as a percentage of world trade have fallen over
the past 25 years, even in areas of traditional American strength, such as
telecommunications equipment and agricultural products (U.S. Department
of Commerce, n.d.). For U.S. businesses to penetrate foreign markets, they
need an understanding of foreign cultures and economies and how to best
interact with possible customers and trading partners (Kedia and Daniel,
2003; Committee for Economic Development, 2006).
The education system is similarly hampered by a lack of needed teach-
ing personnel. Universities report difficulty in identifying instructors for
some less commonly taught languages. Elementary and secondary school
administrators who want to offer such languages report difficulty finding
trained teachers and needed materials. School curricula are considered
inadequate in terms of meaningful international or multicultural content
(Roper Public Affairs and Media, 2002; Harding, 2005). In addition, as
the world economy becomes more and more integrated, there is more need
for a citizenry with a greater understanding of global politics and econom-
ics. There is a need not only for people with such skills, but also for more
institutions, quality resources, and trained teachers to teach them.
The international education programs that focus on foreign languages
and area studies at ED—the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays (Title VI/FH)
programs—are designed to “strengthen the capability and performance
of American education in foreign languages and in area and international
studies” and “improve secondary and postsecondary teaching and research
concerning other cultures and languages, training of specialists, and the
American public’s general understanding of the peoples of other countries”
(see U.S. Department of Education International Education Programs Ser-
vice Office of Postesecondary Education, 2007). The effectiveness of these
programs is important for the nation’s global competitiveness and national
security, as well as for the sake of developing globally competent citizens.
OCR for page 17
INTRODUCTION
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS PROGRAMS
Title VI/FH consists of 14 constituent programs administered by the In-
ternational Education Programs Service, part of the Office of Postsecondary
Education at ED. Generally, the 10 Title VI-funded programs are viewed
as the domestic component, while the four FH-funded programs provide
an overseas complement.
Title VI Programs
Programs under Title VI can be arranged in three broad categories, by
general goal. The first group is aimed at increasing the level of expertise in
foreign languages, area studies, and other international studies:
1. National Resource Centers (NRC)
2. Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowships
3. Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL)
Program
4. Language Resource Centers (LRC)
5. American Overseas Research Centers (AORC)
6. Technological Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign Informa-
tion Access (TICFIA)
7. International Research and Studies (IRS)
The second group of programs is aimed at supporting international
business education and enhancing U.S. leadership in the global economy:
8. Centers for International Business Education and Research
(CIBER)
9. Business and International Education (BIE)
The third category, which has a unique mission, seeks to increase the
number of underrepresented minorities in the diplomatic corps and other
types of international service:
10. Institute for International Public Policy (IIPP)
Fulbright-Hays Programs
The four programs under Section 102(b)(6) of Fulbright-Hays provide
overseas exchange opportunities. The U.S. Department of State operates
separate Fulbright-Hays programs, although ED and the State Department
cooperate with one another on the administration of their programs. It is
OCR for page 18
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
helpful to think of the Fulbright-Hays programs at State as being integral
to U.S. diplomacy abroad, and the Fulbright-Hays programs at ED as
focused on the improvement of domestic teaching and learning of foreign
languages and cultures through overseas study. The component programs
of Fulbright-Hays at ED are:
1. Fulbright-Hays Training Grants–Doctoral Dissertation Research
Abroad (DDRA)
2. Fulbright-Hays Training Grants–Faculty Research Abroad (FRA)
3. Fulbright-Hays Training Grants–Group Projects Abroad (GPA)
4. Fulbright-Hays Seminars Abroad–Bilateral Projects
Each of these 14 programs has a specific, complementary purpose.
The Title VI programs provide resources primarily to institutions of higher
education,2 whereas the Fulbright-Hays programs provide grants to a wide
range of entities, including K-12 teachers. Table 1-1 provides a snapshot of
the purpose of and eligibility for each of the 14 programs.
MEETING NATIONAL NEEDS
In reviewing Title VI/FH and other federal programs that support
language study, it is useful to think of how such programs meet national
needs in two ways—immediate and long term. Immediate national needs
might be viewed as national security and the need to fill positions in the
military, intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and the diplomatic corps
with people who have language and area expertise, as discussed by the 9/11
Commission (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States, 2004).
Long-term national needs are more expansive and include the need to
develop and maintain competencies to respond to future national security
needs, to remain competitive in global markets, to retain a scientific and
technological advantage, and to develop analytic competencies and a gener-
ally more globally aware citizenry. Long-term national needs serve national
security purposes over the long term, going far beyond the narrow focus of
a specific point in time.
Title VI programs were created by the National Defense Education Act
at the height of the Cold War to build language and area expertise because
of national security concerns. However, over time the programs have shifted
to emphasize language and area study as a matter of general educational
2 The International Research and Studies Program is a notable exception. While institutions
of higher education can apply, eligible applicants include public and private agencies, organiza-
tions and institutions, and individuals.
OCR for page 19
INTRODUCTION
TABLE 1-1 Title VI/FH Programs at the U.S. Department of Education
Program Title Purpose Eligibility and Frequency
American To establish or operate overseas Consortia of institutions of
Overseas research centers that promote higher education that receive
Research postgraduate research, exchanges, and more than 50 percent of their
Centers area studies. funding from public or private
(AORC) U.S. sources; have a permanent
presence in the country in which
the center is located; and are tax-
exempt nonprofit organizations.
Competition every 4 years.
Business and To improve the academic teaching of Institutions of higher education
International the business curriculum; to conduct that enter into an agreement
Education outreach activities that expand the with a trade association and/or
(BIE) capacity of the business community business. Competition every 2
to engage in international economic years.
activities; to promote education and
training that will contribute to the
ability of U.S. business to prosper in an
international economy.
Centers for To be national and regional resources Institutions of higher education.
International for the teaching of improved Competition every 4 years
Business business techniques, strategies, and (previously every 3 years).
Education methodologies that emphasize the
and Research international context in which business
(CIBER) is transacted; provide instruction
in critical foreign languages and
international fields needed to provide
an understanding of the cultures and
customs of U.S. trading partners.
Foreign To assist in the development of Institutions of higher education.
Language knowledge, resources, and trained Eligible students apply to
and Area personnel for modern foreign language and are selected by grantee
Studies (FLAS) and area/international studies; to institutions; must show potential
Fellowships stimulate the attainment of foreign for high academic achievement.
language acquisition and fluency; and Competition every 4 years
to develop a pool of international (previously every 3 years).
experts to meet national needs.
Fulbright- To provide opportunities to graduate Institutions of higher education.
Hays Doctoral students to engage in full-time Eligible graduate students apply
Dissertation dissertation research abroad in modern through their institutions.
Research foreign languages and area studies. Annual competition.
Abroad
(DDRA)
continued
OCR for page 20
0 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
TABLE 1-1 Continued
Program Title Purpose Eligibility and Frequency
Fulbright- To provide opportunities to faculty Institutions of higher education.
Hays Training of institutions of higher education to Annual competition.
Grants Faculty engage in research abroad in modern
Research foreign languages and area studies.
Abroad (FRA)
Fulbright- To provide grants to support overseas Institutions of higher education,
Hays Training projects in training, research, and nonprofit organizations, state
Grants Group curriculum development in modern departments of education,
Projects foreign languages and area studies by consortia of institutions, and
Abroad (GPA) teachers, students, and faculty engaged other organizations and/or
in a common endeavor. agencies. Competitions annually
for short-term seminars
(currently under way) and every
3 years for advanced overseas
intensive language projects.
Fulbright- To provide short-term study and travel Eligible participants include
Hays Seminars seminars abroad for U.S. educators elementary, middle, and high
Abroad in the social sciences and humanities school educators in the fields
Bilateral for the purpose of improving their of social sciences, humanities,
Projects (SA) understanding and knowledge of the and languages, including
peoples and cultures of other countries. administrators, curriculum
specialists, librarians,
museum educators, media or
resource specialists, faculty or
administrators from institutions
of higher education. Annual
competitions. Those who have
participated in the SA or GPA
must wait three summers before
they can be eligible to participate
a second time.
Institute for To increase the representation of Consortia consisting of one or
International minorities in international service, more of the following entities: an
Public Policy including private international institution eligible for assistance
(IIPP) voluntary organizations and the foreign under Part B of Title III of
service of the United States. the Higher Education Act; an
institution of higher education
serving substantial numbers of
black or other underrepresented
minority students. Competition
every 5 years.
OCR for page 21
INTRODUCTION
TABLE 1-1 Continued
Program Title Purpose Eligibility and Frequency
International To improve and strengthen instruction Public and private agencies,
Research and in modern foreign languages, area organizations and institutions,
Studies (IRS) studies, and other international fields and individuals. Annual
to provide full understanding of the competition.
places in which the foreign languages
are commonly used.
Language To improve the nation’s capacity for Institutions of higher education
Resource teaching and learning foreign languages or consortia of institutions of
Centers (LRC) (particularly the less commonly taught higher education. Competition
languages) through teacher training, every 4 years (previously every
research, materials development, and 3 years).
dissemination projects.
National To establish, strengthen, and operate Institutions of higher education
Resource comprehensive and undergraduate or consortia of institutions of
Centers language and area/international studies higher education. Competition
(NRC) centers that will be national resources every 4 years (previously every
for teaching of any modern foreign 3 years).
language; instruction in fields needed
to provide full understanding of areas,
regions, or countries in which the
language is commonly used; research
and training in international studies;
language aspects of professional and
other fields of study; and instruction
and research on issues in world affairs.
Technological To develop innovative techniques Institutions of higher education,
Innovation or programs using new electronic public or nonprofit private
and technologies to collect information libraries, or a consortia of
Cooperation from foreign sources. such institutions or libraries.
for Foreign Competition every 3-4 years.
Information
Access
(TICFIA)
Undergraduate To strengthen and improve Institutions of higher education;
International undergraduate instruction in combinations of institutions of
Studies and international studies and foreign higher education; partnerships
Foreign languages. between nonprofit educational
Language organizations and institutions
(UISFL) of higher education; and
Program public and private nonprofit
agencies and organizations,
including professional and
scholarly associations. Annual
competition.
SOURCE: Adaptation of program descriptions listed on U.S. Department of Education web-
site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/index.html.
OCR for page 22
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
importance, as well as for national security reasons. This shift in emphasis
has contributed to tension and disagreement on the extent to which the
programs should be geared to meet immediate federal needs (particularly
in agencies related to national security), or whether the programs should
serve long-term interests and be geared toward maintaining capacity to
teach and study a wide array of languages and areas, beyond those that
may be in demand currently.
Current Controversies
Now that the United States faces a new international threat in the form
of terrorism, national security has again become a central impetus for U.S.
government-funded area studies and language training, as it was at the
inception of Title VI. Immediately after the events of September 11, 2001,
funding for Title VI/FH programs increased by 10 percent, as Congress
made a connection between the terrorist attacks and the need for more
expertise to prevent such attacks in the future.
The reauthorization of the programs, originally scheduled for 2004,
set off a controversy over the intent of the programs and their current
administration, particularly of Title VI-funded NRC and related FLAS
Fellowships. A small group of critics, primarily two fellows at prominent
research organizations and a former diplomat and administrator of Title
VI/FH, asserted that the programs had strayed from their original intent.
In congressional testimony and in print, these critics cited three main
problems: (1) the programs do not adequately emphasize language pro-
ficiency, and over time they have tended toward funding area studies; (2)
there is a lack of diversity of opinion and hostility to U.S. foreign policy in
some fields, particularly Middle East studies; and (3) the programs are not
responsive to national security needs, particularly the language needs of
federal bureaucracies, such as the Departments of State and Defense. They
also advocated creation of a new advisory board to oversee the programs
(Kramer, n.d, 2006; Whitehead, 2004; Kurtz, 2003).
Supporters of Title VI/FH argue that the programs—which have dou-
bled from 7 in their initial incarnation to 14 today—are meant to bolster
national capacity in a variety of modern languages and areas, not to focus
solely on languages immediately critical to national security. In any case,
the list of critical languages changes over time, so it is wise to maintain a
pool of expertise in as many languages as possible. Supporters, including
those in Title VI and other organizations active in foreign language and
international education, contend that Title VI programs play a vital role in
the teaching of less commonly taught languages. In addition, they argue,
funding for these programs is spent wisely because it serves to leverage
additional spending on the part of universities; Title VI funds cover only a
OCR for page 23
INTRODUCTION
small proportion of the actual cost of operating NRC and other institutions,
and universities must provide more to continue to obtain these funds. Fi-
nally, supporters of the programs deny charges of political bias against U.S.
foreign policy goals at funded institutions and point out the importance of
academic freedom in the higher education system in the United States.
After hearings on these issues in 2003, in preparation for the reautho-
rization of Title VI, House Bill 3077 was introduced, which would have
created a permanent advisory board to oversee the programs, as a vehicle
to address some of the issues noted above (U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2003). Although supported by
critics, the proposed advisory board generated significant controversy, par-
ticularly in regard to the board’s authority. The House subsequently passed
a reauthorization bill (H.R. 609) and the Senate introduced a bill (S. 1614)
that had not been considered at the time of the committee’s deliberations;
neither bill was considered by the full Congress. Despite differences be-
tween the bills, both demonstrate a concern with orienting the programs
toward areas of national need, directing recipients into government service,
and ensuring a diversity of perspectives on international affairs.
Controversies about the Title VI/FH programs occurred in the context
of increasing concerns about unmet needs for language and area expertise
in the federal government, particularly in the national security community.
In addition, other federal programs, either new or in the proposal stages,
have goals that seem to overlap with those of Title VI/FH. These include
the National Security Education Program and a new National Security
Language Initiative (NSLI) proposed by President Bush. Funding for the
National Security Education Program has also been an issue as the fund
supporting it was depleted, and its apparent overlap with Title VI/FH has
also been noted.
CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
In light of these controversies, as well as the fact that the programs have
not been reviewed since the early 1980s, and recognizing the importance
of international education, the U.S. Congress directed ED to contract with
the National Academies to conduct this study. The National Academies
was asked to review the effectiveness of ED’s foreign language, area, and
international studies programs—the Title VI programs of the Higher Educa-
tion Act and Section 102(b)(6) Fulbright-Hays programs. The review came
about as a result of the congressional finding, stated in P.L. 108-447, “that
globalization and the war on terrorism have increased America’s need for
international experts as well as for citizens with foreign language skills
and global understanding.” To fulfill this request, the National Academies
established the Committee to Review the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays Inter-
OCR for page 24
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
national Education Programs in February 2006. The members of the com-
mittee, who volunteered their time, include researchers and practitioners
widely recognized to have expertise in foreign language acquisition, interna-
tional studies, international business education, and program evaluation.
As requested by Congress, this study reviews the adequacy and effec-
tiveness of the Title VI/FH programs in addressing their statutory missions
and in building the nation's international and foreign language exper-
tise—particularly as needed for economic, foreign affairs, and national
security purposes. The review gives particular consideration to eight key
areas identified by Congress:
1. Infusing a foreign language and area studies dimension throughout
the education system and across relevant disciplines, including professional
education.
2. Conducting public outreach/dissemination to K-12 and higher edu-
cation, media, government, business, and the public.
3. Reducing shortages of foreign language and area experts.
4. Supporting research, education, and training in foreign languages
and international studies, including opportunities for such research, educa-
tion, and training overseas.
5. Producing relevant instructional materials that meet accepted schol-
arly standards.
6. Advancing uses of new technology in foreign language and inter-
national studies.
7. Addressing business needs for international knowledge and foreign
language skills.
8. Increasing the numbers of underrepresented minorities in interna-
tional service.
As part of its charge, the committee was asked to develop a conceptual
and methodological framework to guide the study; conduct a review of the
existing research literature and sources of evidence; describe its findings and
conclusions regarding the impacts and effectiveness of the programs based
on the available evidence; and provide recommendations for strategies to
enhance the effectiveness of the programs in the future, as well as further
research that could address any limitation of the current review.
The committee’s charge does not direct it to consider the political issues
that surfaced during congressional debates related to Title VI reauthoriza-
tion. The committee therefore has not considered those issues, except as
they serve as a context for questions that do fall under our purview.
The broadest critique held that Title VI/FH programs have strayed from
the original intent of Congress because, according to critics, funds have
been diverted from language proficiency to area studies. In preparation for
OCR for page 25
INTRODUCTION
its tasks, the committee commissioned a legislative history of Title VI/FH
and otherwise acquainted itself with the history of the various programs
now subsumed under Title VI. The committee agrees, as reflected in several
of its recommendations, that improving the language proficiency of those
who might serve the nation in international careers is a key and ongoing
responsibility of the programs. We do not, however, think that language
preparation is somehow separate from cultural understanding, and our
review of the history of Title VI suggests that Congress has consistently
affirmed the interconnection between language preparation and area schol-
arship. This issue is discussed in detail in the report.
A related criticism is that university-based language training is not suf-
ficiently linked with the specific language needs of federal bureaucracies,
such as the Departments of State and Defense and the intelligence agencies.
As the report makes clear, the committee thinks that there is a productive
division of labor between Title VI/FH programs, on one hand, and more
targeted federal resources, such as the National Security Education Pro-
gram, the Defense Language Institute, and the Foreign Service Institute, on
the other, which are designated to address specific government personnel
needs. Universities are best at taking the long view, which explains why be-
tween 2001 and 2003 Title VI centers offered instruction in 276 of the less
commonly taught languages, while only 74 of these languages were being
offered by the Defense Language Institute or the Foreign Service Institute.
Because what languages are deemed critical changes in unpredictable ways,
the nation benefits from the large pool of language expertise housed in
universities.
Finally, the critics claim, there is a pattern of bias in NRCs, with Mid-
dle Eastern studies being singled out for particular attention in this regard.
Neither Congress nor ED included this issue in the committee’s charge.
However, committee members familiar with the history of area studies did
note that “bias” is a recurring charge, which has been voiced as vigorously
by the left as by the right. It is in the nature of scholarship on America’s
role in the world that at times research will be viewed as too critical and
at other times it will be seen as lacking critical perspective. That said, the
committee considers it beyond our charge to arrive at any definitive judg-
ment on the issue.
Finally, the committee’s charge was to review Title VI/FH programs at
ED only. To minimize confusion, we emphasize that our charge does not
include the Fulbright programs administered by the State Department. The
report considers these and other federal programs that also are aimed at
increasing foreign language and area expertise in terms of their possible
overlap and the role each plays in addressing the need for international ex-
perts, but the focus of the report is on ED’s Title VI/FH programs. Similarly,
although there is some discussion of ED’s Foreign Language Assistance
OCR for page 26
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Program, which provides resources to K-12, the report focuses on higher
education, which is the mandate of the Title VI/FH programs.
This report reviews the available evidence, including extant evalua-
tions, public testimony, funding history, program monitoring data, and
other program information, and presents the committee’s findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations in each of the eight areas specified by Congress
on the basis of this evidence. It provides recommendations for strategies to
enhance the effectiveness of the programs in the future, as well as further
research to address the limitations of the current review. However, the lim-
ited evidence available in some cases precluded recommendations specific to
individual programs or related to the relative contributions of the individual
component programs.
BRIEF HISTORY AND FEDERAL CONTEXT
The Title VI/FH programs at ED have evolved over time, as national
needs have shifted in response to changes in global politics and econom-
ics. The legislative history of Title VI charts the evolution of a temporary
international education program into an enduring fixture on the federal
stage. Over the past 50 years the national security emphasis of the programs
decreased, and new programs were added to address changing national
priorities. The international education programs originally created under
the National Defense Education Act were incorporated into the Higher
Education Act, thus expanding the programs beyond the training of special-
ists and emphasizing the importance of international studies as a matter of
general educational importance. Section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educa-
tional and Cultural Exchange Act, or Fulbright-Hays, created an overseas
component to the otherwise domestically based international education
programs under Title VI.
Legislative History
The legislative history of Title VI programs can be viewed as following
three rough periods of development: the early years (1958-1972), when the
foundation of the programs was established; a middle period (1973-1991)
of embedding and revising, during which it became finally established in the
Higher Education Act and several programs were added; and the current
phase (1992 onward), during which the scope of the programs has been
broadened (see Figure 1-1 and Appendix A). Title VI was originally passed
as part of the National Defense Education Act of 1958. This was a period
of increasing cold war tension and competition for influence in developing
nations and the launch of the Sputnik satellite by the Soviet Union. Accord-
ing to ED’s history of the act, the purpose of the law was specifically tied
OCR for page 27
INTRODUCTION
National
Resource
Centers
National Defense Education Act (NDEA) — Title VI
1958 creates programs in foreign languages (particularly less commonly taught) and
area studies to build capacity for national defense with a focus on training
specialists.
Foreign
Lang/Area
Studies
Fellowships
Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act (Fulbright-Hays
1961
Act)
promotes modern foreign language training and area studies within the United Intl Research
States by supporting visits and study abroad. and Studies
Faculty
Doctoral Seminars
Group
Research
Dissertation Projects Abroad-
Abroad
Research Abroad Bilateral
Abroad Projects
Undergraduate
Intl Studies
and Foreign
International Education Act (IEA)
Language
defines federal role in broadening international education beyond specialist
1966 Program
training and shapes future iterations of Title VI (e.g., UISFL) ; funds were never
appropriated.
Business and
International
Education Amendments Education
broadens Title VI to provide support beyond specialist training and to include
1972 undergraduate programs.
Language
Higher Education Act Reauthorization Resource
Title VI of NDEA and provisions of IEA become Title VI of HEA, emphasizing Centers
greater focus on educational programs within higher education rather than
1980 solely to support U.S. government, military, and security needs.
1986 Higher Education Act Reauthorization
Centers for Intl
Business Education
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act
Recognizes need to build international skills in the business community and
1988
to increase awareness about internationalization of U.S. economy.
American Overseas
Research Centers
Higher Education Act Reauthorization
Expands Title VI in light of changing, post-Cold War political and economic
landscape, emerging communications technologies, and greater diversity of
1992 less commonly taught languages.
Institute for
International
Public Policy
1998 Higher Education Act Reauthorization
Technological
Innovation and
Higher Education Act Reauthorization
?? Cooperation for Foreign
Information Access
FIGURE 1-1 Legislative time line of current Title VI/FH programs.
fig 1-1
Right handcircles redrawn
based on widest cirdcle at bottom
Central circles redrawn to one size
OCR for page 28
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
to U.S. security interests: “The NDEA aimed to insure trained expertise
of sufficient quality and quantity to meet U.S. national security needs”
(U.S. Department of Education International Education Programs Service
Office of Postsecondary Education, n.d.). The law initially established a
range of academic programs and fellowships that supported the develop-
ment of international expertise. There was a particular focus on the study
of languages spoken in nations of strategic value to the United States that
were not widely taught at most U.S. universities in the early 1960s, such as
Hindi/Urdu, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, and Russian (Scarfo, 1998).
As time passed, the purpose of Title VI changed slightly as the pro-
gram expanded. As a result of reauthorization every six years, programs
were added to address business needs for international expertise, improve
the programs’ reach to undergraduate education, create new centers fo-
cused on language, support overseas research centers, advance technology
use, and bring individuals from minority groups into international service
professions.
The programs have been broadened to embrace not only immediate
security concerns, but also concerns related to global competitiveness and
a more internationally aware citizenry. However, the enterprise retains
recognition of the importance of both foreign language learning and an
understanding of the cultural context in which the languages are spoken,
as well as the political, social, and economic issues in a range of world na-
tions. It also supports the value of internationalization, both in terms of
helping to produce experts needed to address national security, government,
business, and higher education needs and in terms of enriching the higher
education curriculum.
The Fulbright-Hays programs were created separately from Title VI, by
the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (also called the
Fulbright-Hays Act). Although the act did not specifically address national
security needs, it was passed at a time of increasing public diplomacy efforts
on the part of the United States. Its legislative mandate was “to increase
mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the peo-
ple of other countries.”3 Fulbright-Hays programs funded research abroad
for professors and graduate students to work on advanced research projects
and dissertations. It also provided funds for elementary and high school
teachers to make understanding of other cultures a part of the curriculum
for younger students. It established a variety of short- and medium-term
seminars and research projects abroad for groups of educators. Centers
were established in other nations, for example India and Egypt, which
3 See U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, History of
International Visitor Leadership Program. Available: http://exchanges.state.gov/education/ivp/
history.htm [accessed June 2005].
OCR for page 29
INTRODUCTION
served as institutes of language and area studies, where American educa-
tors could continue to develop their knowledge and skills. After some
reshuffling through such agencies as the U.S. Information Agency, part of
the Fulbright-Hays programs is now funded through appropriations to the
State Department for exchange opportunities integral to public diplomacy,
and part is funded through appropriations to ED for various overseas study
programs aimed at improving domestic foreign language, international, and
area studies expertise.
The evolution of the programs embraces the view that they are designed
to serve both immediate and long-term national needs, with an emphasis
on the long-term ones. Other federal resources, such as the Foreign Service
Institute and the Defense Language Institute, seem to be more suited to
meeting the immediate language needs of the federal government. Title
VI/FH programs, by current law and by the way the programs are ad-
ministered, are not ideally or specifically designed to meet the immediate
language needs of the federal government. Instead, the programs support
the creation of a broad skill base, through research, teaching, and maintain-
ing a long-term national capacity in languages and area studies. They are
focused on building a deep pool of area and language expertise nationally,
not only in government but also in the K-12 system, academia, and busi-
ness. By design, the programs cannot necessarily be quickly fine-tuned to
meet immediate or short-term needs; they are aimed at creating a broad
reservoir of expertise in a wide variety of languages and areas, rather than
a direct channel into government positions or areas of need determined by
rapidly changing geopolitics.
A specific strength of Title VI/FH programs is that they support re-
search and teaching in a wide variety of areas and languages. Changing
geopolitics often causes situations to arise whereby a currently ignored lan-
guage or area becomes a crucial one. Maintaining a wide pool of expertise
would help—and according to supporters has helped—prepare the nation
for future crises. For example, after September 11, 2001, U.S. agencies used
materials for Central Asian languages that were developed with Title VI
funds beginning in the 1960s (Wiley, 2006), and materials and programs
at Title VI institutions have been regularly used as a resource by federal
agencies (Brustein, 2006). In this way, the programs maintain a base level
of expertise and the capacity to teach new languages as needs arise.
The committee notes that the definition of critical languages differs even
by agency, based on their particular needs. Although multiple agencies have
begun to implement initiatives as part of the president’s proposed National
Security Language Initiative (NSLI), with a common goal of increasing the
nation’s capacity in “critical languages,” the specific languages identified
have differed by agency as well as by program (see Box 1-1).
The list of critical languages used in Title VI/FH programs was report-
OCR for page 30
0 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
BOX 1-1
Varying Definitions of Critical Languages
Languages identified by the State Department when announcing the National
Security Language Initiative (used for ED’s Foreign Language Assistance Program
competition):
• rabic, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, and
A
• Indic, Iranian, and Turkic languages
Languages eligible for study (including both languages and literature and, in
some cases, linguistics) using Department of Education SMART (Science and
Mathematics Access to Retain Talent) grants:
• hinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Urdu, Por-
C
tuguese, Arabic, Hebrew, Filipino/Tagalog, Turkish
• frican, Iranian/Persian, Bahasa Indonesian/Bahasa Malay, and Turkic,
A
Ural-Altaic, Caucasian, and Central Asian languages
Languages supported under the Department of Defense National Flagship Lan-
guage Program:
• urrent languages: Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Persian, Russian
C
Languages targeted under expansion:
• Arabic, Chinese, Hindi/Urdu, and Central Asian Languages
SOURCES: Powell and Lowenkron (2006).
edly developed with extensive input from the field. The list of 171 languages
was left intentionally broad to allow flexibility in response to changing
national strategic priorities and emerging requirements. This approach is
consistent with the views of at least some experts in the language com-
munity, who applaud the NSLI but argue that “there is a critical need for
all languages” (Joint National Committee for Languages and the National
Council for Languages, 2006). As discussed in the next chapter, the com-
mittee concludes that capacity must be maintained in a broad range of
languages.
In addition to building foreign language expertise, Title VI/FH pro-
grams serve national security needs, in the long term, by developing and
sustaining area and international knowledge. There is a need for area stud-
ies experts whose skills extend beyond language and who are familiar with
OCR for page 31
INTRODUCTION
the culture, politics, economics, and other characteristics of various regions
and countries. It is important that the pool of area studies experts be deep
enough to meet changing national needs, because the particular foreign cul-
tures of importance to government, business, humanitarian organizations,
and academia have changed over time. Immediately after World War II,
area studies were oriented toward European and Soviet studies, because of
the cold war, the Marshall Plan, and the development of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organisation alliance. When cold war competition shifted to the
Third World, interest rose in Latin American and Asian studies. When U.S.
businesses began to confront Japanese competition, there was a need for
experts on Japan. Currently, attention has moved to the Middle East and
Central Asia, because of increasing competition for influence in these re-
gions, their natural resources, and political, religious, and ethnic instability.
In addition to these “new areas,” there is still need for experts on nations
that are important on the world stage because of their size and power, such
as Russia, Japan, and China, and emerging regional powers, such as India,
South Africa, Brazil, and Nigeria. Again, because it is impossible to predict
what future hot spots of attention will emerge, it is important to have a
pool of expertise in areas or countries in which interest may increase in the
future. For example, Indonesia is the fourth largest nation in the world in
terms of population and the largest Muslim nation. Universities may not
be prepared to create or sustain programs without sufficient demand to
support the faculty positions required to teach about Indonesia. Experts in
Indonesian politics or the Indonesian language may have difficulty finding
work in academia unless there is an additional federal incentive to universi-
ties to fund positions to study and teach about that nation.
Finally, Title VI/FH programs support U.S. competitiveness in both
specific and general ways. Title VI funds two programs aimed at interna-
tionalizing business school curricula. In general, the programs overall play
a role in developing a globally competent citizenry. Such citizens have an
understanding of the complexities of global economics, politics, and foreign
cultures, in order to be able to compete internationally, interact comfort-
ably with people of other cultures, make informed judgments about inter-
national affairs, and supply the federal government with needed expertise.
Ideally, the pool of globally competent citizens would serve in a variety of
professions of importance to the international standing of the United States,
such as diplomacy, law enforcement, the military, health care, business,
academia, nongovernmental organizations, and all levels of the education
system. This pool should also include people in minority groups, which
have been underrepresented in such areas as diplomacy and other areas of
international service.
As this report demonstrates, Title VI/FH programs meet many needs.
The range of goals and purposes for these programs is quite wide. They
OCR for page 32
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
are designed not only to help meet national security needs, but also to
promote economic competitiveness, to help create an informed citizenry,
to support teaching and research on foreign languages and regions, to help
minority students enter international fields, to collect and archive foreign
language materials, and to generally support university efforts to expand
and improve language and area studies programs. At the same time, today’s
world presents many new challenges and opportunities. ED needs to better
position itself and the Title VI/FH programs to incorporate these challenges
and opportunities.
Funding History
The current 14 programs that emerged from this legislative process
receive 3 appropriations. The IIPP, created in 1992, receives its own ap-
propriation (FY 2006: $1.6 million). The remaining nine programs under
Title VI are funded as the domestic component of ED’s international edu-
cation programs (FY 2006: $91.5 million), while the four Fulbright-Hays
programs receive an appropriation as the overseas component (FY 2006:
$12.6 million). Allocation of funds across the several programs that are
part of Title VI or Fulbright-Hays is largely an administrative decision made
by ED,4 although in several instances Congress has directed the department
to award new funds in particular ways.
As Figure 1-2 shows, the IIPP appropriation has remained relatively
constant since the program was created; it has consistently represented
about 2 percent of the combined appropriation for IIPP and the other Title
VI programs. The Title VI and Fulbright-Hays appropriations have experi-
enced greater change. The Title VI appropriation,5 in particular, has expe-
rienced periods of significant increase and significant decrease. The fortunes
of the programs seemed to be connected in the early years, as the two ap-
propriations generally increased or decreased in unison. In the 1990s, while
the Title VI program experienced modest but steady growth, funding for
Fulbright-Hays remained relatively constant. Both programs experienced
a resurgence in the early 2000s, when they experienced several years of
growth. This growth has tapered off slightly in the most recent years.
In the programs’ early days, they experienced a peak in funding in fiscal
year (FY) 1967. Funding dropped precipitously in FY 1971 as a result of
efforts to eliminate Title VI. Despite the addition of multiple programs and
4 The Higher Education Act limits to 10 percent the proportion of funds that can be used for
the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program. In practice, however,
given the limited available funds, its allocation has not reached this amount.
5 For ease of reference, although IIPP is a Title VI program, the term “Title VI appropriation”
refers to the nine programs, excluding IIPP.
OCR for page 33
INTRODUCTION
100,000,000
90,000,000
80,000,000
Appropriation Amount
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000 Title VI
40,000,000 Fulbright-Hays
IIPP
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
1957-Launch of Sputnik 1989-Fall of 2001-September 11
1958-NDEA-Title VI created Berlin Wall bombings on U.S. soil
FIGURE 1-2 Appropriations for Title VI/FH programs, 1959-2006 (adjusted to
2006 dollar amounts using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers).
SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education. Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics adjustment factors, available: http://www.bls.gov/cpi [accessed March 2007].
fig 1-2
full column width
an expanded mission, funding did not reach FY 1967 levels until almost
four decades later, in FY 2002. This gain was due in large part to signifi-
cant funding increases in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, when both
Title VI and Fulbright-Hays received significant funding increases. Both
programs received increases (in absolute terms) in three successive years,
as follows:
• FY 2001: Title VI increased by 8 percent and Fulbright-Hays by 50
percent;
• FY 2002: Title VI increased by 27 percent and Fulbright-Hays by
18 percent; and,
• FY 2003: both increased by 10 percent.
In FY 2001, the congressional conference committee acknowledged
ED’s work on performance indicators but noted that “more work needs
to be done in developing specific, numeric goals and baseline data for
these programs.” The FY 2002 and FY 2003 increases were accompanied
by specific language in the Appropriations Committee’s conference report
OCR for page 34
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
providing direction to the department on how to use the additional funds.
In general, ED was directed to use Title VI/FH increases to focus on par-
ticular world areas and languages, increase the number and amount of
FLAS awards, increase the average award for other programs, establish new
Language Resource Centers in specific targeted areas, and various efforts to
enhance language learning.
Interest in the programs’ reaching professional disciplines was also
reinforced. Finally, in FY 2002 ED was given the authority to use up to 1
percent for program evaluation, national outreach, and information dis-
semination, a provision that has continued.
At first glance, it appears that FY 2003 Title VI funding levels rival
those of the programs’ early days. However, it is important to keep in mind
that the recent funding peaks were used to fund nine distinct programs with
a broad national agenda, compared with the three programs funded in the
FY 1967 heyday. If one considers only the allocations for programs that
existed in FY 1967 (NRC, FLAS, and IIRS), the original three programs
have actually experienced a significant reduction in funding in constant dol-
lars ($95,368,000 in FY 1967 versus $71,027,844 in FY 2003).6 Although
the appropriation has increased between 2 and 19 percent concurrent with
the addition of programs, the increases have been offset by decreases in
interim years.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Following this introduction, the remainder of Part I provides relevant
background for the committee’s work. Chapter 2 outlines information on
the demand for foreign language, international, and area expertise and the
role of the Title VI/FH programs in relation to other federal programs in
addressing this demand. Chapter 3 presents information on the implemen-
tation and monitoring of Title VI/FH in the higher education system and
by the federal government.
Part II, comprised of Chapters 4 through 10, discusses program perfor-
mance, based on the committee’s review of the available evidence, and our
conclusions and recommendations for each of the eight key areas identified
by Congress. Discussion of the programs’ activities related to infusing a
foreign language and area studies dimension, and conducting public out-
reach are discussed in a single chapter, Chapter 4, given the relationship
between vertical integration with the K-12 system and outreach by Title
VI programs.
Part III outlines the committee’s conclusions and recommendations re-
6 Funding was adjusted to 2006 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers.
OCR for page 35
INTRODUCTION
lated to the future effectiveness of the programs and addressing limitations
of our review, the two final components of our charge. Chapter 11 discusses
program monitoring and evaluation at ED, leading to a discussion of a
proposed effort aimed at continuous improvement. Chapter 12 outlines a
series of challenges and opportunities that the programs, ED, the education
system, and the federal government must address in the decades ahead.
The appendices provide valuable background information. Appendix
A provides a legislative history of the programs, with a focus on Title VI,
which has experienced the most change. Appendix B provides additional
detail on the committee’s approach, introduced in Chapter 4. Appendix C
provides information on the rating criteria and priorities used in the largest
programs. As discussed in Chapter 3, these mechanisms are used to target
program applications toward specific priorities. Appendix D provides a
brief history of foreign language assessment in the United States. Appendix
E presents tabular information on federal programs designed to address
international education and foreign language needs. Finally, Appendix F
provides biographical sketches of the committee members and staff.
