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.
3 Title VI and Fulbright-Hays Implementation T he Title VI and Fulbright-Hays (Title VI/FH) programs at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) are among many federal programs that support the study of foreign languages and cultures. Some of these programs are in-house training programs that prepare federal em- ployees to meet job-related requirements, while others, like the Title VI/FH ones, are more general educational programs designed to create a broad pool of expertise. This chapter begins with an overview of the federal programs supporting language, area, and international studies based on the committeeâs review of publicly available descriptive information about the programs to illustrate how the Title VI/FH programs fit into the federal governmentâs broader efforts in this area. It then moves to discussion of how the programs are implemented at ED, including historical funding trends, and how they operate in the university context. TITLE VI/FH PROGRAMS IN RELATION TO OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS Federally funded language and area studies programs can be divided into two categories, reflecting whether their primary role is to address more immediate demands for job-related language, area, and international skills or longer term, more general needs (see Box 3-1; see also Appendix F for â The federal government also meets some of its language training needs through the use of private contractors; language training at some agencies is simply contracted out to com- panies, such as Berlitz. In addition, some agencies maintain pools of translators who work 58
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION 59 BOX 3-1 Two Types of Federal Language and International Education Programs General Education Programs â¢ Title VI, Department of Education â¢ Fulbright-Hays, Department of Education â¢ Foreign Language Assistance Program, Department of Education â¢ International programs under the Fund for Improvement of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education â¢ National Security Education Program (NSEP), Department of Defense â¢ Fulbright Program, Department of State â¢ Title VIII and Gilman Scholarships, Department of State â¢ Louis Stokes and Pat Roberts Scholarships, various intelligence agencies Federal Training Programs â¢ Foreign Service Institute, Department of State â¢ Defense Language Institute, Department of Defense â¢ Special Operations Forces Language Office, Department of Defense â¢ National Cryptologic School, National Security Agency â¢ Intelligence Language Institute, Central Intelligence Agency a brief description of each program and information on its purpose, eligibil- ity, funding level, and number of participants.) In the first category are training programs designed to meet more im- mediate job-related needs that are available exclusively for federal person- nelâpeople employed in the Foreign Service, military, intelligence, law enforcement, and so forth. Training is provided by government institutes, such as the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) and Defense Language Institute (DLI) (as well as contractors), to address immediate language needs of the federal agencies. The level of proficiency is determined by the operational requirements of the job or task and the domain in which the language is to be used. on a contract basis, such as at the U.S. Department of Stateâs Office of Language Services. In response to a congressional mandate, the Federal Bureau of Investigation established the National Virtual Translation Center in 2003 to coordinate and expand the pool of contract translators with advanced language proficiency. Supported by several intelligence and defense agencies, the center develops and maintains a shared database with up-to-date information on available translators, while simultaneously informing translators about a variety of full-time and part-time work opportunities (National Virtual Translation Center, 2007).
60 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES In the second category are scholarship, recruitment, and exchange programs that can be accessed by a wide range of students, academics, administrators, and institutions. This group of federal programs, including the Title VI/FH programs, develops a broad pool of bachelorâs, masterâs, and doctoral graduates with language abilities or knowledge of world re- gions and international issues (or both), helping to meet long-term needs. Although there are some similarities between the Title VI/FH programs and the other federal programs in this category, there are also several key differences: â¢ Title VI/FH programs at ED have no foreign policy component.â Al- though the Fulbright programs at the U.S. Department of State are of benefit to the nationâs academics and society, their primary purpose is fos- tering mutual understanding among people of different nations. Fulbright programs at the State Department help build connections between opinion makers and academics in the United States and other nations, for the pur- pose of improving the image of the United States abroad. â¢ Title VI/FH programs at ED are not recruitment programs.â Al- though the legislation that created the programs at ED stresses the impor- tance of language and area studies knowledge for the purpose of national security, most of the component programs are not primarily aimed at creating a direct pipeline into the foreign affairs, intelligence, and military bureaucracies. That is the major purpose of other programs in the group, such as the National Security Education Program, the Pat Roberts and Pickering Fellowships, and the Stokes Scholarships. Those programs seek to identify talented individuals with critical skills and pay for part of their education, with the possibility of permanent employment in the intelligence and national security communities. They also require federal service, unlike the Title VI/FH programs. â¢ Title VI/FH programs at ED do not focus solely on âcriticalâ languages.â Critical languages are identified by the national security com- munity as those in which need for language abilities is greatest, because they are spoken in nations considered critical to U.S. national security. The National Security Education Program focuses on these critical languages. The federal government institutes and other resources specific to govern- ment personnel focus on languages demanded by their agency at the time of their training. In contrast, Title VI/FH was created to support the study of any âmodernâ foreign language deemed to be underrepresented in the â One exception is the Institute for International Public Policy Program (IIPP) under ED Title VI/FH, which is focused on preparing minority students for a career in international affairs. This program, which has some similarities with the scholarship programs at the State Depart- ment, is discussed in Chapter 11.
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION 61 United States, with a focus on less commonly taught languages. Less com- monly taught languages are languages other than English, German, French, and Spanish. â¢ Other ED programs supporting language and area studies share similar purposes with Title VI/FH programs, but the relationship is complementary.â EDâs Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) is specifically aimed at improving foreign language instruction at the K-12 level, by funding innovative state and district-level programs that can be replicated in other states. The Title VI programs provide resources primarily to institutions of higher education, with some expected to provide outreach to the K-12 system to help develop expertise. Although teachers are eligible for some of the FH programs, it is to study overseas in order to improve their capacity to teach foreign languages and international and area stud- ies. The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) includes several components. One component funds three international programs similar to those funded by the Fulbright Group Projects Abroad (GPA) Program. However, the FIPSE programs grew out of international cooperation agreements with Mexico, Canada, Brazil, and the European Union, and the Office of Postsecondary Education appears to distinguish projects geographically between FIPSE and Fulbright GPA. As part of its grants competition, however, FIPSE does fund some higher education international education programs that appear similar to those funded by Title VI. The greatest overlap in terms of activities exists between ED Title VI/ FH and two other programs: the Fulbright Program at the State Depart- ment, which shares its beginnings with the Fulbright-Hays Program at ED, and the National Security Education Program at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). While there is some overlap in funded activities, there are also key differences in the purpose and emphases of the programs. Fulbright-Hays at the Departments of Education and State Both the Fulbright program at the State Department and the Fulbright program at the ED were created by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, for the purpose of âincreasing mutual understand- ing between the people of the U.S. and the people of other countriesâ (U.S. Department of State, 2003). Although the programs have some activities in common, the two Fulbright programs have different purposes. The â These are the U.S.-Brazil Higher Education Consortia Program; European Union-United States of America Cooperation Program in Higher Education and Vocational Education and Training; and the Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education.
62 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES programs at the State Department are focused abroad in order to make connections and increase understanding among U.S. and foreign students, academics, and opinion makers. The programs at ED have the goal of improving U.S. domestic education in foreign languages and area studies. Although the State Departmentâs Fulbright programs have the residual ef- fect of increasing area and language knowledge, they are designed primarily to serve a foreign policy goalâto counter the sometimes negative image of the United States in foreign universities and among opinion makers. In that sense, there is no overlap in terms of the purposes of both programs. Despite their different missions, both programs support U.S. citizens in their study abroad, in somewhat similar ways. For example: â¢ Both fund graduate-level research abroad (EDâs Training Grants for Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad [DDRA] and the State Depart- mentâs Fulbright-Hays Student Program). â¢ Both fund faculty travel and research abroad (EDâs Fulbright- Hays Faculty Research Abroad [FRA] Fellowship Program and the State Departmentâs Fulbright Scholar Program). â¢ Both fund travel for K-12 educators abroad (EDâs Fulbright-Hays Seminars Abroad [SA] and the State Departmentâs Fulbright Teacher and Administrator Exchange Program). â¢ With the Fulbright-Hays SA/Bilateral Projects, ED works in tandem with the State Department to provide funding for U.S. citizens to take part in binational projects. However, the different missions of the two programs are reflected in the quite different topics that are investigated during these study abroad activities. Many participants in the Fulbright program at the State Depart- ment are not traveling abroad specifically to improve language and area studies but to lecture and to do research, primarily on social and political issues. The K-12 programs are also different. Unlike the State Department Fulbright programs, the ED Fulbright-Hays programs do not invite foreign teachers to the United States. Title VI and the National Security Education Program The National Security Education Program (NSEP) at DoD was created by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (Title VIII of the Intelligence Authorization Act). The primary impetus was post- Desert Storm analyses and congressional hearings. The National Security Education Act mandated that the secretary of defense create a program to award scholarships and fellowships to undergraduate and graduate students to study languages and regions critical to U.S. national security, including
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION 63 the opportunity to study abroad in those regions. It also mandated that DoD provide support to U.S. institutions to develop programs in and about countries and languages critical to U.S. national security. The aim was to create a direct link between identifying the federal governmentâs current and future language needs, supporting individuals studying those languages, and then recruiting those same individuals for careers in national security or to meet other language needs (National Security Education Program, n.d.). The program surveys federal agencies for their broadly defined area and language needs and then allocates portable scholarship funds to U.S. undergraduate and graduate students. NSEP includes a service requirement that mandates a good faith effort by scholarship recipients to gain employ- ment in a national security-related position in the federal government. The terms of the service agreement have been modified by Congress on three separate occasions, most recently in 2006. The current service provision requires NSEP award recipients to first seek employment in one of four federal organizations (Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State, and the intelligence community) and, if no position is available, in any fed- eral agency in a position related to national security. In a given year, there are about 350 recipients in the pipeline to fulfill their obligation to work in a federal agency. The largest number of recipients finds positions in the Departments of State and Defense, and the intelligence community. NSEP receives direction from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and administrative support from the National Defense University. The program currently has three major component parts: (1) undergraduate scholarships, (2) graduate fellow- ships, and (3) grants to institutions. Since 2003, NSEP has reoriented its institutional grants to the National Flagship Language Program (NFLP). NFLP programs are at major U.S. universities and are designed to develop and implement curriculum to graduate students with Interagency Language Roundable (ILR) level 3 proficiency in âcriticalâ languages (Arabic, Central Asian Chinese, Farsi, Hindi, Urdu, Korean, and Russian) to level 3 profi- ciency on the ILR scale. NSEP is different from the ED Title VI/FH programs in a few significant ways. First, it is focused on current language needs in the area of national security, the critical foreign languages spoken in nations that are important allies or actual or potential adversaries of the United States. Second, there is a government service requirement for NSEP individual grantees. Third, fellows typically spend extended periods of time studying overseas. However, according to a Congressional Research Service report (Kuenzi and Riddle, 2005a) there is some potential overlap between the activities of NSEP and ED Title VI/FH programs. It is in NSEPâs grants to institu- tions of higher education under the National Flagship Language Program, which may overlap with the Title VI grants to National and Language
64 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES Resource Centers. Another Congressional Research Service report (Kuenzi and Riddle, 2005b) also raises the issue of an overlap and discusses the pos- sibility of saving administrative costs by consolidating the two programs, focusing Title VI at ED more on critical languages or moving the NSEP to ED or the Central Intelligence Agency. Congress discussed the possibility of moving the NSEP to ED but rejected it in order to retain the connection with defense-related interests. Figure 3-1 illustrates the general overlap between Title VI/FH programs at ED, the Fulbright program at the State Department, and NSEP at DoD, as well as some of the areas in which each program is distinct. Unique Components of Title VI Programs There are also several components of the Title VI programs that fund activities unique to the array of federal programs; in some cases, the re- sources and materials produced by these programs serve as resources to the other federal programs. They include â¢ Funding U.S. institutions of higher education to provide education and training in international business (Centers for International Business Education and Research [CIBER], Business and International Education [BIE]). â¢ Supporting international studies programs (as opposed to students) at the undergraduate level (Undergraduate International Studies and For- eign Language [UISFL]). â¢ Developing instructional and assessment materials related to for- eign language teaching (Language Resource Centers [LRC]). â¢ Supporting overseas research centers that promote postgraduate research (American Overseas Research Centers). â¢ Developing materials for foreign language instruction (Interna- tional Research and Studies [IRS]). â¢ Conducting surveys and evaluations of foreign language instruction (IRS). â¢ Using technology to collect and archive foreign language instruc- tional materials (Technological Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign Information Access [TICFIA]). â The presidentâs proposed National Security Language Initiative would move the pilot K-16 initiatives funded under NSEP into an expanded program at ED.
Title VI/ FH at ED NSEP at DoD Purpose: Support domestic Purpose: Create pool teaching of foreign languages of language and area and area studies experts to meet national security needs â¢ Grants to â¢ Outreach to U.S. institutions â¢ Scholarships for business and K-12 for instruction domestic and â¢ Internships for foreign study, with undergraduates, service minority students â¢ Curriculum requirement development â¢ Undergraduate study abroad â¢ Graduate study â¢ Professional and research development abroad â¢ Research â¢ Faculty research abroad â¢ K-12 study abroad â¢ Faculty lecture abroad Fulbright at the State Department â¢ Foreign academics to U.S. Purpose: Increase mutual â¢ Exchange programs understanding between â¢ Foreign outreach people of U.S. and other nations FIGURE 3-1â Overlap in activities of three federal foreign language and area studies programs. 65 NOTE: The size of the circles or the area of overlap should not be interpreted to indicate an exact level of overlap. 3-1 circles redrawn and type repositioned and re-wrapped Landscape view
66 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION During 2006, international education began to reemerge as a priority in ED. Early in the year, the secretaries of education and state convened a meeting of university leaders to discuss the Bush administrationâs proposed National Security Language Initiative, designed to increase the number of Americans learning critical foreign languages, with an emphasis on the K-12 system (see Chapter 13). The American Competitiveness Initiative was also launched, which included SMART (Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent) grants awarded by ED for undergraduates and graduates studying critical foreign languages or science, mathematics, or technology. In September 2006, the secretary of educationâs Commission on Higher Education released its final report, calling for increased federal invest- ment in higher education to support international education, including study abroad and foreign language training (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a). In October of that year, ED released new grants to school districts for language instruction, including many in the critical foreign languages targeted by the National Security Language Initiative. And in a November speech welcoming participants to the annual International Education Week conference, Secretary Spellings said that globalization highlighted âthe im- portance of foreign languages in communicating and forming partnerships with citizens from other cultures and countriesâ (Spellings, 2006). At the same time, the committee was unable to identify meaningful reference to foreign language study or international education in EDâs current strate- gic plan. The ED has several offices with a role in international and foreign language issues: the Office of International Affairs in the Office of the Secretary; the Office of English Language Acquisition, which reports to the deputy secretary of education and houses the Foreign Language Assistance Program; and the Office of Postsecondary Education, which houses the International Education Programs Service and the Fund for the Improve- ment of Postsecondary Education. According to the Office of Management and Budget, ED at one point had an International Activities Coordinating Group, which was formed to improve the coordination of international programs and activities throughout ED (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2004). According to ED staff, the group met periodically for about a year between 2002 and 2003 but is no longer active. â Although, as discussed in Chapter 1, it included a broader list of critical languages.
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION 67 International Education Programs Service The Title VI/FH programs are administered by the International Educa- tion Programs Service (IEPS) in the Office of Postsecondary Education. The director of the office is currently a career civil servant who reports to the deputy assistant secretary for education, who in turn reports to the assistant secretary for postsecondary education. At one point in the past, under the Carter administration, the office was headed by a political appointee who reported to an assistant secretary for international education. The current organizational position of the programs may reflect the relatively low pri- ority that foreign languages, area, and international issues have been given in the recent past. There appear to be few formal mechanisms for coordination either across programs in the department or across the full range of federal gov- ernment programs. However, various IEPS staff represent the department on interagency coordinating groups, including a group at the State Depart- ment related to the Fulbright-Hays programs and the ILR (Ruther, 2006). The ILR is a loosely knit network of language specialists from across the federal government, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. It or- ganizes monthly plenary meetings with presentations and meetings of three standing committees on language testing, language training, and translation and interpretation (Interagency Language Roundtable, 2006a). The IEPS office implements each of the 14 programs as a separate competition, although universities applying for both the National Resource Centers (NRC) and the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellow- ship Programs do so with a single application. For some of the smaller pro- grams, a single project officer oversees all grants made for that program. For the larger programs, multiple project officers are involved. Project officers appear to operate with significant autonomy, creating both opportunities for creativity (see, for example, Chapter 10) and the risk of stagnation. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the IEPS staff manage funds from three appropria- tions: one for the Institute of International Public Policy, a second for the remaining Title VI programs, and a third for the Fulbright-Hays programs. Allocation of resources across the Title VI or Fulbright-Hays programs is an administrative decision made by the department; in general, the previous yearâs amount appears to determine subsequent year funding. â President Carter also created a high-level Commission on Foreign Language and Inter- national Studies to raise the visibility of international education, assess national needs, and recommend funding and resources to meet those needs.
68 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES 35,000,000 30,000,000 NRC 25,000,000 Allocation Amount FLAS CIBE 20,000,000 IRS LRC 15,000,000 UISFL BIE TICFIA 10,000,000 AORC 5,000,000 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-2â Allocation history for the Title VI programs, 1980-2006 (adjusted to 2006 dollar amounts using the CPI-U). SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education. IIPP is not included since it receives a separate appropriation. 3-2 New file Funding Allocations 3/5/07 Since 1980, the oldest year for which the committee was able to obtain these data, most programs have received more or less the same proportion of the total Title VI or FH appropriation. Although ED is generally given discretion to allocate funds among the component programs, allocations in any given year are guided by the proportional allocations in previous years. Congress has also provided direction on how increases in funding should be used (see Chapter 1). The NRC and FLAS Programs have consistently received the largest share of total Title VI funding, followed by the CIBER â ED was not able to provide information on the allocation of funds across programs any earlier than 1980. â As reported by IEPS Program staff at June 19, 2006 meeting, Washington, D.C.
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION 69 Program. The other programs have received relatively constant shares of overall spending although the LRC Program received an increase in funding in the early 2000s, consistent with a congressional directive (see Figure 3-2). The FLAS Program, the only one that has experienced a sustained increase in the proportion of total funds allocated, is a notable exception. Total FLAS funding increased from 25 percent in 1997 to 32 percent in 2006. Consistent with the intent expressed in appropriations language, both the average per fellowship award and the number of fellowships increased. The average award for an academic year fellowship increased from $20,000 in FY 1997 to $27,000 in FY 2006. TABLE 3-1â Foreign Language and Area Studies Awards Year FLAS Annual FLAS Summer FLAS Overall 1980 â â $42,680 1981 $50,827 â â 1982 41,582 â â 1983 â â 43,586 1984 â â 41,520 1985 â â 38,057 1986 â â 28,128 1987 â â 25,459 1988 â â 27,175 1989 37,579 $â 9,395 25,053 1990 â â â 1991 â â â 1992 â â 28,496 1993 36,912 8,685 25,315 1994 â â â 1995 38,261 9,604 27,286 1996 36,209 9,091 25,823 1997 34,478 10,357 25,107 1998 33,083 9,938 24,091 1999 31,817 9,545 22,814 2000 32,079 9,165 22,684 2001 30,525 8,721 21,441 2002 34,018 8,164 24,116 2003 31,382 7,532 22,213 2004 28,670 6,881 19,806 2005 27,746 6,936 19,281 2006 27,000 6,500 18,661 â Data not available. SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education. Data were adjusted to 2006 values using the College Tuition subindex of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Available: http://www.bls.gov/cpi.[accessed March 2007].
70 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES 700,000 Average NRC award value Average CIBER award value 600,000 Average LRC award value 500,000 400,000 Grant Amount 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year FIGURE 3-3â Average NRC, CIBER, and LRC grant amounts, 1980-2006 (adjusted to 2006 dollar values using the CPI-U). Although appropriations have sometimes occurred in conjunction with fig 3-3 the addition of new Title VI programs, funding overall has not kept pace with the expanded mission of the programs and the expectationsnew file) New label on Y axis (from (e.g., data collection, outreach) placed on grantees, or with inflation. For example, although FLAS awards have increased since 1980, when adjusted to ac- count for rising tuition costs, their value has decreased (see Table 3-1). Similarly, although the main Title VI appropriation in recent years is near what it was in the programâs heyday (see Figure 1-1), it is now used to fund nine programs rather than three. Given the increased number of programs and program objectives, this could be interpreted as a decrease in funding. Finally, although the average NRC grant remained relatively constant between 1980 and 2006 (see Figure 3-3), program expectations have increased. NRCs are required to conduct teacher training activities, expected to reach out to a range of professional disciplines, and required to collect extensive data on courses offered, placement of program graduates, publications, outreach, and related activities. Although LRCs and CIBERs
TABLE 3-2â 2003-2006 Competition Results for NRC, CIBER, and LRC Programs, in Real and Adjusted Dollars FY 2003 FY 2006 Percentage Change Average Award: Average Award: Average Award: Average Award: Adjusted Value Average Award: (FY 2003 Real (FY 2003 Adjusted Number Real Value (2006 dollars Number Real Value Number Value to FY 2006 Value to FY 2006 Program of Grants (2003 dollars) using CPI-U) of Grants (2006 dollars) of Grants Real Value) Real Value) NRC 120 250,250 274,187 124 230,806 3 (8) (16) CIBER 30 370,000 405,391 31 343,548 3 (7) (15) LRC 14 364,286 399,130 15 320,000 7 (7) (20) SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education. 71
72 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES 6,000,000 DDRA GPA SA 5,000,000 FRA 4,000,000 Allocation Amount 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-4â Allocation history for the Fulbright-Hays programs, 1997-2006 (ad- justed to 2006 dollar values using the CPI-U). SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education. 3-4 new received 3/5/07 have also experienced fluctuations in their average grant award, the average award for those programs has generally been around $100,000 per year higher than NRC average awards. Over the past three years, the average grant award for the NRCs, CIBERs, and LRCs have all decreased, even without accounting for inflation (see Table 3-2). It appears that this is due in part to the increase in the number of grants. Like Title VI, Fulbright-Hays received a funding increase in the early 2000s, although the total amount for these programs remains very small in comparison to Title VI. Most of the increased funding was allocated to the DDRA Program, which funds research by individual graduate students, and GPA (see Figure 3-4). The proliferation of programs has also increased management chal- lenges, while Title VI/FH staffing levels have either decreased or remained stable. At the same time, staff are now required to perform both financial
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION 73 and project monitoring functions, tasks that were performed by two differ- ent people in the past. Staff operate separate competitions for each of the 14 programs, with different rating criteria and priorities for each. Application Process A separate request for applications (RFA) is published in the Federal Register and on the ED website, along with the form, the criteria that will be used to evaluate and rank the applications and priorities that will ap- ply to that competition. Most competitions are held every 3-4 years (see Table 1-1). Awards under the CIBER, NRC, and LRC Programs were recently extended from 3 to 4 years, both to decrease staff burden and to enable more stability for the funded centers. ED uses application rating criteria and three types of priorities to in- fluence grant applications and direct funds toward perceived federal needs (see Appendix C). An applicant must propose activities responsive to an absolute priority to be considered for funding. Applicants who respond to competitive priorities may receive extra points in the review process, affect- ing the likelihood of success in the grant competition. Finally, applicants who respond to an invitational priorityâa priority that signals IEPS interest in a topicâmay receive additional funding for doing so, but they do not receive any competitive preference over other applicants. During site visits and other meetings with grantees, staff indicated that priorities influence their applications significantly. ED also uses rat- ing criteria to steer applicants in particular directions. For example, in the most recent RFA for NRC grant proposals, IEPS allocated 25 points for âimpact and evaluation,â encouraging applicants to propose strong self- evaluation plans. Applications may be submitted online or in paper form. IEPS staff conduct a technical assistance meeting prior to each competition to inform potential grantees about the process and the relevant criteria and priorities for each competition. Once applications are received, IEPS convenes panels of experts to review them according to the detailed rating criteria published in the RFA. This process takes place electronically; reviewers do not meet for face-to-face discussion. To review NRC and FLAS applications, IEPS convenes separate panels for each world area made up of two area experts and one language expert. The expert review panels rank all applications. Panels reviewing NRC and FLAS applications compare and rank them against other applications in that world area, while other panels review and rank all applications in a program (e.g., all CIBER applications, all IRS applications). ED awards grants to applicants ranked above a certain cutoff point established for each program or world area. The committee was told by ED officials that separate panels are used to ensure that there
74 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES is some capacity retained in each of the world areas and that this process is currently being reconsidered. After a competition, applicants may request from IEPS their rankings for each of the criteria and any specific comments provided by the reviewers. This is typically sent in hard copy and may take several days to receive. Applicants receive information about their own application only. Grant Monitoring Process For the several programs that award multiyear grants, IEPS staff con- duct annual grant reviews based on the information submitted via the Eval- uation of Exchange, Language, International and Area Studies (EELIAS) database. Individual project officers are expected to review the reports to determine that the grantee has made reasonable progress. According to both ED officials and grantee staff, site visits by IEPS project officers have been severely curtailed in recent years, given staff and other resource limitations. In addition, current departmental procedures require senior-level approval of individual travel requests. The committee was told by ED officials that the increased focus on evaluation in the application process, which now includes a requirement to include an outside evaluator, was implemented in part to address the limitations faced by staff to conduct on-site reviews. Center Grants As mentioned above, the NRC competition is run by world area, with the targeted world area defined by the grantee. ED has directed applicants toward particular world areas using application priorities. In some cases, this has been in response to specific congressional directives included in ap- propriations language and may be a factor in the distribution of grants. The preference extended in the application process to applicants with existing capacity may also be a factor in the relative constancy of centers focused on any given world area. NRC awards have maintained three overall tiers with the largest number of centers consistently being in areas of strategic importance (see Figure 3-5): â¢ Largest number of centers: East Asia, Latin America, Middle East, Russia/Eastern Europe â¢ Middle number of centers: Africa, International, South Asia, South- east Asia, Western Europe â In February 2007, IEPS launched a redesigned system which was renamed International Resource Information System. However, we refer to the system as EELIAS throughout this report since that was the system in place during the committeeâs analysis.
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION 75 Tier 1: More than 12 centers (n = 4 world areas) 20 18 16 14 Number of Funded NRCs 12 10 8 East Asia 6 Latin America 4 Middle East Russia/E. Europe 2 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Year Tier 2: More than 4, fewer than 12 centers (n = 5 world areas) 20 18 Africa Southeast Asia International Western Europe 16 South Asia Number of Funded NRCs 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Year Tier 3: Fewer than 5 centers (n = 8 world areas) 20 18 Asia Canada 16 Caribbean Number of Funded NRCs 14 Central/Inner Asia 12 Europe 10 Europe/Russia 8 North America Pacific Islands 6 4 2 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Year FIGURE 3-5â Number of NRCs by world area and tier, 1973-2009. 3-5
76 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES â¢ Lowest number of centers: Asia, Canada, Central/Inner Asia, Eu- rope, Europe/Russia. The committee notes, however, that since the world area focus is defined by the applicant university, grantees focus on various configurations of Euro- pean and Asian areas. The groupings above are based on how the grantees defined their world area. Unlike the NRC Program, which has experienced fluctuation in grant- ees over time, the number of LRC and CIBER grantees has been relatively unchanged. The LRC Program has increased the number of grantees in each competition, typically by adding an LRC with a particular language or topical focus (e.g., K-12, heritage speakers) but only one funded LRC was unsuccessful in a subsequent competition. Similarly, although CIBERs have been added, only one CIBER did not receive funding in a subsequent competition. Overall Demand Demand for Title VI grants is substantial. Although more than half of the NRC, FLAS, CIBER, and LRC applicants have received funding in the past several competitions, a much smaller proportion of applicants has been funded for the BIE, IRS, TICFIA, and UISFL Programs. In the most recent competition, only about one-quarter of the applicants for these programs were awarded grants. The number of applications for nearly all programs has steadily increased over the past decade (see Table 3-3). TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS AND THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT The large research-intensive universities, which receive the bulk of Title VI/FH funding, are typically organized into multiple levels. At the bottom of the organizational hierarchy are the basic building blocks of the uni- versity (Ruther, 2006), the departments, which are organized by academic discipline. Departments play the central role in key employment decisions, including recruiting, hiring, promoting, retaining, and dismissing faculty and staff. These departmental building blocks are assembled into largely autonomous schools and colleges, which form a higher level of internal organization. At the top of the organizational hierarchy is the university leadership, which typically includes the provost and the president. An un- derstanding of this university context is important as it affects the ability of Title VI/FH to accomplish objectives, such as supporting research, educa- tion, and training, infusing a foreign language and area studies dimension across disciplines, and conducting K-12 outreach.
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION 77 TABLE 3-3â Proportion of Title VI/FH Applications Funded and Applications Received 1997-2006 Percentage of Applications Funded (number of applications received) Program 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 AORC 53 30 65 80 (15) (10) (17) (15) BIE 28 30 33 30 29 38 30 31 25 33 (86) (90) (78) (92) (100) (88) (97) (93) (105) (85) CIBE 37 65 75 79 (35) (23) (40) (39) FLAS 82 73 71 73 (157) (163) (175) (171) IRS 37 17 33 36 29 34 26 10 22 25 (57) (52) (40) (53) (42) (59) (104) (93) (89) (83) LRC 56 56 65 (16) (25) (23) NRC 68 68 71a 65 70 (161) (167) (167) (184) (178) TICFIA 32 43 29 (25) (23) (34) UISFL 33 28 48 38 33 28 22 27 31 24 (88) (95) (64) (77) (85) (106) (132) (103) (94) (92) aDuring this time period, NRC competitions occurred every three years (e.g., 2000, 2003). However, in 2002, to address a legislative mandate, four new NRCs were awarded from the pool of applications received in 2000. SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education. Knowledge of a world area or global issue requires a range of depart- ments, disciplines, and methods that may range from political science to religious studies to law to language. To be effective, international research and training may require participation of faculty not only from different departments, but also from different schools or colleges. Yet because de- partments typically reward faculty based on specialized research using deep discipline-specific research methods and knowledge, participating in inter- disciplinary international education may hurt a young faculty memberâs career. As a National Academies report on interdisciplinary research con- cluded (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 2004, p. 3): âIn attempting to balance the strengthening of disciplines and the pursuit of interdisciplinary research, education, and training, many institutions are
78 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES impeded by traditions and policies that govern hiring, promotion, tenure, and resource allocation.â To counteract such impediments and bring multiple disciplines together around international issues, universities have created area studies centers and other new organizational units. However, because these centers lie out- side the mainstream structures and reward systems of the university, they have always depended on external funding. Wealthy donors who had lived or traveled abroad provided support for the earliest area study centers at American universities in the late 19th century. During World War II, the federal government funded additional centers for language and area train- ing. In the postwar era, the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford foundations provided continuing support for some area centers, but the federal govern- ment emerged as the most important supporter of research and training in foreign languages and area studies (Biddle, 2003). Although institutional support for such centers has grown, their multidisciplinary approach con- tinues to make them âan alternative axis of organizationâ (Trubek, 1999, p. 142) in the university. Challenges for International Education in the University Environment Several trends over the past three decades have increased the pressures on universities, exacerbating tensions between the mainstream departmen- tal building blocks and the alternative axis of international education structures (Trubek, 1999). First, with the end of the cold war, some scholars and policy makers questioned the need for in-depth study of world cultures and languages. At the same time, some social science faculty, steeped in disciplinary traditions, challenged the rigor of interdisciplinary area studies and opposed hiring new faculty with area expertise. In language departments, faculty who had won tenure based on scholarship in literature saw little reason to have to teach modern foreign languages themselves, and foreign language instruc- tion was often left to nontenure-track instructors. These critiques were muted somewhat in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. In early 2007, a Modern Language Association panel recommended restructuring the traditional model of language instruction to discontinue reliance on lecturers and better incorporate study of history, culture, economics, and society (Jaschik, 2007). However, international education faculty continue to face financial and logistical challenges in carrying out their research and teaching, particularly teaching of the less commonly taught languages (Biddle, 2002). By the end of the 1990s, foundation funding that had sup- ported international and area studies had substantially decreased. Second, since the end of the 1970s, growing enrollments and declining
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION 79 state support have forced public colleges and universities to raise tuitions, becoming competitors in the higher education marketplace rather than pro- viders of a shared public good (Pusser, 2002). Private universities may also face budget constraints, depending on the size of their endowments and the fluctuations of the job market. Today, all universities compete vigorously, nationally and internationally, to recruit the strongest students and faculty, raise external funds, and secure tuitions. Recruiting students, especially the best and brightest, is critically important for economic viability and to win prestige. In a reinforcing cycle, prestige helps a university win external support, and winning external support, in turn, enhances prestige. External funding demonstrates to potential new faculty hires that the university is dynamic and worth devoting a career to. Prestige helps a university place doctoral graduates at top universities, increasing revenues and operating flexibility (Ruther, 2006). To compete successfully in this marketplace, universities must meet high professional and academic standards. A young faculty member must teach, do research, and publish in well-regarded journals in order to win tenure. Tenure decisions may be reviewed at several levels before becoming final. The quality of faculty publications is enhanced by the peer review process for journal articles, and the quality of faculty teaching is reviewed by students and peers. Some universities have adopted merit pay systems, under which faculty member pay scales are based in part on student reviews of faculty teaching. Third, as competition for the best students has grown, student interest in international education and foreign languages has been mixed. Between academic years 1989-1990 and 2003-2004, the total number of B.A. de- grees awarded in all fields grew by 33 percent, reflecting demographic trends. Within this total, however, the number of social science and history B.A.s grew only 27.3 percent. The number of B.A.s in foreign languages and linguistics grew somewhat more rapidly, at 35.2 percent. However, both of these growth rates were modest compared with the most rapidly growing fields of study, including parks/recreation/leisure/fitness, at 383 percent, computers and information sciences at 117 percent, visual and perform- ing arts at 93 percent, and security and protective services at 83.5 percent (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). Benefits and Complexities of Title VI Funding In this environment of heightened competition for students, faculty, and resources, Title VI funding is even more essential. Title VI funding can help to overcome faculty resistance to new interdisciplinary approaches and can also help to win institutional support. However, Title VI and other
80 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES external support cannot substitute over the long term for the tuition and institutional resources that reflect success in the competitive higher educa- tion marketplace. A key to success of any externally funded innovation is buy-in from the colleges and schools, departments, and centers that make up the building blocks of the university. Because Title VI grants require universities to provide matching funding and other sources of support, they help to generate buy-in and longer term support for international education and foreign language training (Ruther, 2006). While Title VI programs bring clear benefits to universities, the fund- ing is relatively modest and brings new complexities. Applying for an NRC grant is complex and time-consuming, requiring negotiations with adminis- trators and faculty to ensure that required university commitments of fac- ulty time, funding, and resources are in place. Success is not guaranteed in the highly competitive process. Collaboration across universities or across programs is complicated by the fact that they are in competition with one another for very limited funds. If funds are received, they require further rounds of negotiations to obtain the multidisciplinary expertise needed to develop deep expertise in a region or world area and its languages. The NRC director must have excellent skills in negotiation and persuasion to succeed, and there is frequent turnover in these positions. In recent years, the job of NRC director has become even more com- plex and challenging, with reduced funding and expanding missions. The most recent (2006) NRC grant awards average only $230,806, a decline of 8 percent from the previous grant cycle. Less money is available for core activities, such as âbuying outâ a professorâs course load, so that he or she has more time to conduct international research, or paying salaries for instructors of the less commonly taught languages. At the same time, how- ever, the NRC grant must support outreach to K-12 education and other activities. As noted above, the most recent NRC grant awards included an absolute priority for teacher training activities, a competitive priority for activities to measure language proficiency, and five other invitational priori- ties (Ruther, 2006). The typical CIBER director faces other challenges. Although the aver- age CIBER award in 2006 was also 7 percent less than in the previous cycle, at $343,548, it was higher than the average NRC grant. By law and through the award process described above, CIBER programs focus on a narrower set of goals than do NRCs. However, the law requires that each CIBER establish an advisory board of key stakeholders on campus, in busi- ness, and in government. It also requires a contractual commitment from the university for matching funds equal to the CIBER grant. As a result, the CIBER director has a dedicated budget for the grant cycle, while the NRC director has only the written commitments for matching funds included in the grant application. The law also mandates that the CIBER must focus
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION 81 half of its efforts on internationalizing the business school and the other half on the larger business world and business educators, in order to en- hance the global competitiveness of U.S. businesses. This means that the CIBER director can focus program activities on two major audiencesâthe business education community, including a small, closely knit community on campus and national business faculty associationsâand the business community (Ruther, 2006). By comparison, the NRC director must serve a much larger and more diffuse audience with differing needs. CONCLUSION The Title VI/FH international education programs at the U.S. Depart- ment of Education are among several federal programs that support the study of foreign languages and cultures. Although there are some similari- ties between the Title VI/FH programs at ED and other foreign language and area studies programs in terms of the types of activities funded, the missions, focus, and purposes of the various programs differ. There are also important differences in the emphases and content of the projects. Some programs, such as the National Security Education Program and the Stokes Scholarships, are specifically aimed at developing a pipeline of individuals with specific talents into jobs at federal bureaucracies. They focus on a narrow set of critical languages. The Fulbright program at the State Depart- ment is a key component of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. The proposed NSLI would add capacity in critical languages and move language train- ing to elementary and secondary education. In contrast, the Title VI/FH programs are designed to build capacity and expertise in the U.S. higher education system in the broadly defined areas of modern foreign languages and international and area studies. The Title VI/FH programs play a unique role in the array of federally funded international education programs by stimulating universities to create a broad infrastructure of faculty, courses, and other academic activities focused on modern foreign languages, area studies, and international training. Although the Title VI/FH programs have a common objective in higher education, they are administered as 14 separate programs. Overall fund- ing has not kept pace with expansion in the number and objectives of the programs, or with the demand for funds. In the case of the FLAS Program, although average awards have increased as requested by Congress, the pur- chasing power of those grants in relation to tuition costs has declined. The ability of Title VI/FH to accomplish its broad mandate is hampered by the limited availability of funds. For example, NRCs charged with expanded objectives and expectations are expected to do so with little or no increase in funds.