International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America's Future (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1 Introduction A pervasive lack of knowledge about foreign cultures and foreign lan- guages 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   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. 15 

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. 

INTRODUCTION 17 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 

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, 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   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. 

INTRODUCTION 19 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 

20 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. 

INTRODUCTION 21 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. 

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 

INTRODUCTION 23 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- 

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 

INTRODUCTION 25 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 

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 

INTRODUCTION 27 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 Doctoral Faculty Group Seminars Dissertation Research Projects Abroad- Research Abroad Abroad Bilateral Abroad Projects Undergraduate Intl Studies International Education Act (IEA) and Foreign defines federal role in broadening international education beyond specialist Language 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 1988 Recognizes need to build international skills in the business community and 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 Higher Education Act Reauthorization Innovation and ?? 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 

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.” 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   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]. 

INTRODUCTION 29 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- 

30 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 

INTRODUCTION 31 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 

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, 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, 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   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.   For ease of reference, although IIPP is a Title VI program, the term “Title VI appropriation” refers to the nine programs, excluding IIPP. 

INTRODUCTION 33 100,000,000 90,000,000 80,000,000 Appropriation Amount 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 Title VI 40,000,000 Fulbright-Hays 30,000,000 IIPP 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 

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). 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-   Funding was adjusted to 2006 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. 

INTRODUCTION 35 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.