FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION: The Need to Expand Our Frontiers As the United States enters the 21st Century,

we are facing globalization on many fronts and at a pace previously unknown. We hear so often of the challenges to reinvent ourselves, the need to prepare for the jobs of the future. Ever since 9/11 the US government has aggressively pursued the Global War on Terror (GWOT), transforming the missions of our military overseas and changing the way of life we know at home. Implicit in these trends is the need to communicate faster and more effectively across national and cultural bounds and a critical success factor in all these spheres will be foreign language proficiency. For most of our history, however, the level of interest in foreign languages has been low. Internally, despite the influx of immigrants, English remained the de facto official language of public discourse and commerce. Externally, the US was isolated from Europe and Asia by the oceans and dominated the countries to the north and the south (Dutcher). Now, all this has

changed and we must expand our foreign language programs at all levels of the educational ladder. The publics interest in foreign languages grew during the 1950s, especially jolted by the launch of Sputnik by the USSR. At the time, only 24% of US high school students were enrolled in foreign language classes. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 included funding for foreign language teachers and materials for secondary schools. But the interest waned again in the 60s and 70s as did funding for these programs. Enrollment fell in high schools and in primary schools most programs ceased.

In the government sector, there were impressive gains as the Defense Language Institute pioneered the study of lesser studied languages. The Peace Corps and the Foreign Service Institute developed new materials and methods for their trainees. In 1979, President Carter convened the Presidents Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies to look at the national effort in this area and made a series of 65 recommendations. Few of these were ever implemented and the course of developments in the field did not change notably until the 1980s when interest once again grew (Panetta, 1999). In spite of the growth of the American multinational corporation, language and cultural literacy did not mirror this growth(Vaught and Schaub, 1992). To the contrary, many businesses continued to rely on either the false hope that everybody there speaks English (often to their great chagrin) or they hired local personnel for off-shore operations (Ricks, 1982). Among the problems facing the improvement of foreign language education in the United States can be cited: 1. a lack of an articulated national policy that identifies the language needs and priorities of the country; 2. a lack of qualified teachers; 3. a lack of teacher training and professional development programs; 4. a lack of coordination between primary, secondary and university-level programs. Over the past 20 years, foreign language education has been the subject of much study at the federal level and has benefitted from a series of legislative initiatives, including: 1) the Foreign Language Assistance Program of 1988, part of Title II of the amendments to the primary and secondary education act. (reauthorized in 1994) which provided grants to local authorities for model programs in foreign language education; 2) the National Security Education Act of 1992 which provided support for lesser studied languages; 3) Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 which began to identify standards for foreign language education (and other subjects). The

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 helped to promote the adoption of standards in foreign language education but some observers feel it squeezed out foreign language programs due to its strident focus on math and English. On the other hand, additional resources were earmarked for foreign language programs by the Administration under the Critical Languages initiative and other defense education programs. This has included financial support in the form of loan forgiveness for students of critical languages. Outside the legislative arena, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) has been instrumental in establishing and promoting standards, such as the ACTFL scale of proficiency by which learner achievement can be assessed. ACTFL has also promoted curriculum design concepts, such as the five Cs that call for a well rounded program to include: Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities. In the private sector, the Committee for Economic Development issued a statement in February of 2006 in which it noted, To compete successfully in the global marketplace, both U.S.-based multinational corporations as well as small businesses increasingly need employees with knowledge of foreign languages and cultures to market products to customers around the globe and to work effectively with foreign employees and partners in other countries. Given the new-found interest in foreign language education, now is an opportune moment to push forward with expanding and strengthening these programs. National Policy: Referring back to the four points listed above, a national policy should be sought as a broadly based consensus statement to inventory needs in the area of foreign language proficiency to include national security, government affairs, business, commerce, travel, cultural exchange, other academic pursuits and personal enrichment. This needs assessment can form the basis on which policy and priorities can be derived.

Lack of Instructors: Content knowledge is a critical success factor for teachers of any subject and in the case of foreign languages this means an instructor with at least near-native fluency in the target language. It takes many years of study to acquire this level of proficiency. One possible avenue to address this would be a special licensing procedure to allow speakers of other languages to teach or, going even further, a special visa that would allow foreign educated teachers to get temporary work permits and licensing to meet staffing short-falls. This would be similar to recruitment of foreign nursing staff in the past. Lack of Teacher Training: For instructors who otherwise qualify as foreign language teachers, pre-service and in-service training programs can be implemented to meet their needs. In the field of English as a Foreign Language (or ESL/EFL), there are even private firms, such as CELTA, that provide basic training for teachers who wish to work as private tutors. Lack of Coordination between Primary, Secondary and Tertiary institutions: With the advent of Standards Based Education, there may be, for better or worse, a greater uniformity across the states. As a part of a national language policy, it may be possible to explore and adopt

curriculum-flow guidelines that could provide for a more rational progression of instruction based on age, grade or years of study. Due care must be given to the division between state and federal responsibilities in the area of education and these may be advisory rather than compulsory. As Secretary Rod Paige observed: "Foreign language instruction should be part of every child's education. Each language is a precious resource that must be studied, used, and preserved precisely because a language opens the mind to new possibilities. The study of language is the study of life, literature, history, and thought. It is nothing less than the study of our world and ourselves (2003).

CED. CED Urges Increased Investment in International Education and Foreign Languages. Press Release. Washington, DC. 2006 Retrievable from: http://www.ced.org/newsroom/press/press_foreignlanguages.pdf Dutcher, Nadine (1995). Overview of Foreign Language Education in the United States. Based on: Report to the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement's Language Education Study, Phase I. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrievable from: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/resource/foreign.htm Paige, Rod (2003). Remarks of Secretary Paige at the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Philadelphia, PA: ACTFL. Retrievable from www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2003/11/11212003.html Panetta, Leon (1999). Foreign language education: If 'scandalous' in the 20th Century, what will it be in the 21st Century? Stanford, CA: Stanford Language Center. Retrievable from http://language.stanford.edu/about/conferencepapers/panettapaper.pdf Taylor-Ward, Carolyn. The Relationship between Elementary School Foreign Language Study in Grades Three Through Five and Academic Achievement on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the Fourth-Grade Louisiana Educational Assessment Program for the 21st Century (LEAP 21) Test. (Dissertation) Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Ricks, David. A. (1982). Big Business Blunders: Mistakes in Multinational Marketing. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Pub. Voght, Geofrey M. and Schaub, Ray (1992). Foreign Languages and International Business. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) Journal. Retrievable from www.cal.org