[Senate Hearing 106-801]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-801
THE STATE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE CAPABILITIES IN NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND
FEDERAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 14 AND 19, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-304 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
------
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND FEDERAL SERVICES
SUBCOMMITTEE
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine CARL LEVIN, Michigan
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania MAX CLELAND, Georgia
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Mitchel B. Kugler, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Minority Staff Director
Julie A. Sander, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator Cochran.............................................. 1, 21
Prepared statement:
Senator Voinovich............................................ 2
WITNESSES
Thursday, September 14, 2000
Ellen Laipson, Vice Chairman, National Intelligence Council...... 3
Ruth Whiteside, Deputy Director, National Foreign Affairs
Training Center, Department of State........................... 6
Christopher K. Mellon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, Department of Defense............................ 8
David E. Alba, Assistant Director, Investigative Services
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation...................... 9
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Hon. Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education, accompanied by
Scott Fleming, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs..... 22
Robert O. Slater, Director, National Security Education Program.. 28
Dan E. Davidson, President, American Councils for International
Education...................................................... 31
Martha G. Abbott, Foreign Language Coordinator, Fairfax County
Public Schools................................................. 35
Frances McLean Coleman, Teacher/Technology Coordinator, Ackerman
High School and Weir Attendance Center, Choctaw County,
Mississippi.................................................... 38
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Abbott, Martha G.:
Testimony.................................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 103
Alba, David E.:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Coleman, Frances McLean:
Testimony.................................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 108
Davidson, Dan E.:
Testimony.................................................... 31
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 93
Laipson, Ellen:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Mellon, Christopher K.:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Riley, Hon. Richard W.:
Testimony.................................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Slater, Robert O.:
Testimony.................................................... 28
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 79
Whiteside, Ruth:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 56
APPENDIX
Thursday, September 14, 2000
Additional material submitted for the Record:
Article from CNN, May 7, 1999, entitled ``Chinese demand U.N.
meeting after Belgrade embassy attached''.................. 110
Article from The Washington, Post, May 8, 1999, by Daniel
Williams, entitled ``NATO Missles Hit Chinese Embassy''.... 116
Article from CNN, May 9, 1999, entitled ``Amid protests, U.S.
says `faulty information' led to Chinese embassy bombing''. 119
Report on Foreign Language Proficiency....................... 123
Cover Story: Area Studies Putting the World in Context, May
1997, State Magazine....................................... 128
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Prepared statements submitted for the Record from:
Rebecca R. Kline, President, National Council for Languages
and International Studies, Executive Director, Northeast
Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, and
Adjunct Assistant Professor of French, Penn State
University................................................. 129
Myriam Met, President, National Network for Early Language
Learning................................................... 133
Anna Uhl Chamot, Ph.D., Co-Director of the National Capital
Language Resource Center at Georgetown University, the
George Washington University, and the Center for Applied
Linguistics, Washington, DC................................ 142
Kathleen M. Marcos, Center for Applied Linguistics,
Washington, DC............................................. 147
Gilbert W. Merkx (University of New Mexico) and David Wiley
(Michigan State University), Co-Chairs, Council of
directors of Title VI National Resource Centers for Foreign
Language and Area Studies.................................. 155
Letters received by Senator Cochran from:
Virginia S. Ballinger, President, National Council of State
Supervisors of Foreign Languages, dated September 13, 2000. 158
Edward M. Dixon, Ph.D., Academic Technology Coordinator For
Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University,
Washington, DC, dated September 19, 2000................... 159
Susan Schmidt, Executive Director, Alliance of Associations
of Teachers of Japanese, University of Colorado, Boulder,
CO, dated September 18, 2000............................... 161
Lynne McClendon, Executive Director, Southern Conference on
Language Teaching, dated September 9, 2000................. 162
Scott McGinnis, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Council
of Organizations of Less Commonly Taught Languages, dated
September 18, 2000......................................... 164
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
S. 601, Foreign Language Education Improvement Amendment Act
of 1999.................................................... 166
Statement from Congressional Record, March 11, 1999.......... 168
Emily Wax, Schools Desperate for Foreign Language Teachers,
July 4, 2000. The Washington Post, p. A09.................. 170
Speaking in Tongues. Newsweek: How to Get Into College, p. 34 173
Marcia Harmon Rosenbusch, Director, National K-12 Foreign
Language Resource Center, Iowa State University, prepared
statement.................................................. 175
Richard D. Brecht, Ph.D., Director, The National Foreign
Language Center at the University of Maryland, prepared
statement.................................................. 178
THE STATE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE CAPABILITIES IN NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services,
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m. in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Cochran.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. The Subcommittee will please come to
order.
Today we are having our first hearing on the state of
foreign language capabilities in national security and the
Federal Government.
Earlier this year, the House-Senate International Education
Study Group hosted a briefing on the crisis in Federal language
capabilities. As the subject of that briefing suggests, it is
feared by some that the deficiencies among Federal agencies and
the departments which have national security responsibilities
in our government are serious enough to be called a crisis.
This hearing will examine that subject.
We already know from previous hearings in both houses of
Congress that this has been a serious problem for some time.
There is a concern that the situation is getting worse rather
than better. Are the right languages being taught to enough
people? Are contract linguists sufficient for high level
analysis? The Defense Language Institute trains up to 5,000
military personnel in 52 languages every year. The Foreign
Service Institute teaches over 60 languages to its recruits.
Our investment in training is very expensive. It costs $70,000
in tuition for foreign service officers to become proficient in
some languages.
Our security depends upon our ability to communicate with
other nations' security agencies to interdict drug trafficking,
monitor terrorist activities, and conduct joint military
operations. Having individuals who understand the languages of
other nations is important to our success in diplomacy,
defense, and intelligence-gathering. We need to know how we can
do a better job in meeting the need of our government personnel
for foreign language proficiency.
We appreciate very much the witnesses who are here today to
help us understand these issues. Ellen Laipson is Vice Chairman
of the National Intelligence Council; Ruth Whiteside, Deputy
Director of the National Foreign Affairs Training Center;
Christopher Mellon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence; and David E. Alba, Assistant Director of the
Investigative Services Division. Your full written statements
will be printed in the record in full, and we hope you will be
able to summarize your statements for us at this hearing.
I am going to ask at this point that a statement by our
distinguished fellow Subcommittee Member Senator Voinovich of
Ohio be printed in the record in full.
[The prepared opening statement of Senator Voinovich
follows:]
PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Good morning. I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this important hearing. Since July of last year I have held six
hearings in my Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and
Restructuring and the District of Columbia on various aspects of the
human capital crisis confronting the Federal Government. The purpose of
my Subcommittee's hearings has been to learn how the lack of attention
governmentwide to sound workforce policies has adversely affected the
management of Federal agencies and programs.
Your hearing today is interesting, Mr. Chairman, because it focuses
on a specific problem--the state of our foreign language capability--
and in doing so you are able to expose an acute need, which I think
makes it easier for everyone to understand the consequences of what I
call the human capital crisis facing the Federal Government.
Perhaps the current shortfalls in our language capability and their
affect on mission success are best demonstrated in the ongoing U.S.
peacekeeping intervention in the Balkans, an operation in which I have
keen interest.
In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, General
Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO, stated that NATO's
actions in the Balkans had generated significant language requirements.
At the same time, he said, you really have to look hard to find a staff
sergeant in the U.S. Army who speaks fluent Albanian. There just aren't
many of them, and the military is always going to be short of skilled
linguists.
Therefore, the Department of Defense has had to hire more than 900
linguists on contract for its operations in the Balkans. Several of the
contractors, in turn, are experiencing difficulty in recruiting
qualified personnel to meet their obligation to the Defense Department.
And depending upon the sensitivity of the situation, the use of non-
U.S. Government personnel raises concerns about security.
Clearly, the shortage of organic language skills in the armed
forces diminishes our peacekeeping ability. In the Balkans, our
soldiers lack the cultural awareness and understanding that comes with
a command of the spoken language. It almost certainly hinders our
ability to cooperate with and assist the people we are there to help.
Furthermore, it invariably makes conflict avoidance and resolution more
difficult as well.
For the foreseeable future, our lack of language capabilities is
going to greatly increase the difficulty of peacekeeping operations and
compromise the safety of our troops in the Balkans and elsewhere.
There is another example I would mention, Mr. Chairman. Over half
of the linguists and international experts in the FBI are nearing
retirement, which could leave the FBI woefully short of the personnel
needed to investigate international organized crime. We are seeing this
retirement trend in critical positions throughout the Federal
Government, and we must do something about it, especially since the
current administration has failed to take the initiative.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, Senator DeWine and I introduced
legislation to provide workforce realignment authority to the
Department of Defense. Its purpose is to assist the Department in
meeting its need for qualified staff in professional fields, such as
linguists and computer specialists. The modified language of our bill
was amended to the defense authorization bill, which is still in
conference. But it is only a down payment on the more comprehensive
reforms that are needed to address the skills shortfalls in the Federal
workforce. My Subcommittee is working on a report that will explore
ways to improve the management of Federal agencies and programs through
a concerted effort to develop and retain a world-class civil service,
and I look forward to sharing that report with my colleagues and the
next administration.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you once again for holding this hearing, and
look forward to working with you, Senator Akaka, and Chairman Thompson
next year on human capital reform.
Senator Cochran. Ms. Laipson, you may proceed first. Thank
you.
STATEMENT OF ELLEN LAIPSON,\1\ VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL
Ms. Laipson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for giving me the opportunity to address your Subcommittee
regarding the Intelligence Community's foreign language
requirements. I approach the subject from three perspectives.
As the Vice Chairman of the NIC, I have a role in producing all
source analysis and am aware of the Intelligence Community's
capabilities to do so. As Vice Chairman of the National
Intelligence Collection Board, I participate in discussions
about collection needs and shortfalls, including our ability to
process and exploit foreign language material. And lastly, I am
the Director of Central Intelligence's representative on the
National Security Education Program Board, which sets broad
guidelines for this new foreign language scholarship program,
about which your Subcommittee will be hearing more in a
subsequent hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Laipson appears in the Appendix
on page 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me say a few words just to define what the Intelligence
Community is. It is a wide array of agencies and institutions
under the DCI's leadership. It comprises principally of the
CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security
Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the Department
of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, as well as
components of other departments and organizations. I will try,
in my remarks, to give general points that would be true of
virtually all of these agencies and also identify for you
issues that may pertain to some parts of the community more
than others.
One cannot overstate the centrality of foreign language
skills to the core mission of the Intelligence Community.
Foreign languages come into play at virtually all points of the
intelligence cycle--from collection to exploitation to analysis
and production.
The collection of intelligence depends heavily on language,
whether the information is gathered from a human source through
a relationship with a field officer, or gathered from a
technical system.
Information then has to be processed and exploited, which
entails verifying the accuracy and explaining it in clear and
unambiguous terms.
All source analysts then integrate these intelligence
reports along with media reports, including information from
the Internet, which, as many people don't know, is now
increasingly in non-English languages, embassy reporting, and
other information to produce finished intelligence products for
decisionmakers.
Of course, the finished product is in English. But the
inputs may come from several different foreign languages and
need to be assessed by a range of people with the ability to
translate and interpret the material in its original language
and in its particular context.
Mr. Chairman, the Intelligence Community has a large number
of talented people with the appropriate language skills. But
their quantity, level of expertise, and availability do not
always match the ever-changing requirements of the intelligence
mission. You have asked, Mr. Chairman, how our language needs
have changed over the past 25 years. During the Cold War, when
the Soviet Union was the only credible threat to vital U.S.
interests, one could structure a workforce to have a critical
mass of personnel with needed skills, including Russian
language, and then smaller ranks of cadres with expertise on
other regions and critical hot spots.
Today, as we face much more diverse and complex threats,
one would ideally want a workforce with skills that balance
more evenly the requirements of events in Russia, China, the
Arab world, Iran, Korea, Central Asia, and key countries of
potential instability in Africa, Latin America, and East Asia.
As nationalist tendencies continue to increase, we are seeing
more independent nations come into existence, which places an
ever greater burden on the Intelligence Community to keep pace
with expanding language requirements.
There is no doubt that most managers in the intelligence
business wish that foreign language capabilities of the
workforce, whether in technical jobs, overseas positions, or
analytic jobs, were more robust. At present, CIA, DIA, INR, and
various other agencies have identified their key shortfalls in
Central Eurasian, East Asian, and Middle Eastern languages. Of
course, the Community's need for foreign language skills is not
limited to non-European languages, even though that is where
the emphasis is in new hiring. Strong language skills, for
example, in Spanish and French, which are more readily
available, can be critical for analyzing selected intelligence
issues, such as counternarcotics in Latin America or turmoil in
Africa.
Let me give some sense of what the shortfalls in foreign
language capabilities can mean for our ability to serve our
customers--senior national security decisionmakers:
The Intelligence Community often lacks the foreign language
skills necessary to surge during a crisis. For example, Serbo-
Croatian skills in the period of the buildup to the NATO
bombing of Serbia.
At times, we obtain large volumes of documents that may be
critical to make the case about gross human rights abuses by
someone like Saddam Hussein. But lack of right scale of
translating capacity makes it hard to provide thorough analysis
in a timely way for policy decisions.
And a lack of language skills can limit our analysts'
insight into a foreign culture, restricting their ability to
understand and anticipate a deterioration in a particular
situation. This often diminishes our ability to warn
policymakers about a potential trouble spot.
Thousands of technical papers that provide details on
foreign research and development in scientific or technical
areas currently go untranslated because we lack the funds and
personnel to interpret the material. Should this situation
continue, we could face the possibility of a technological
surprise.
So let me address some solutions. The Intelligence
Community clearly would like to remedy key shortfalls, have a
higher percentage of its officers with knowledge of at least
one language in the areas they work on, and have those with
languages able to maintain their skills at a high level of
functionality.
Let me turn to some specifics. Clearly, in recruitment, the
Community is posting in its vacancy notices and advertisements
to prospective job applicants an emphasis on foreign language.
Hiring new officers with the appropriate language capability is
clearly one important solution to the shortfall, but these
newcomers to the intelligence business will require other
training and seasoning before the range of their skills is put
to full use.
For the workforce that is already in place, a number of
important initiatives are underway to mitigate language
shortfalls and plan for long-term needs across the Intelligence
Community.
The Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis
and Production, John Gannon, has recently completed a strategic
investment plan for Intelligence Community analysis. It
identifies strategies and a series of initiatives to improve
analysis and production capabilities, including a focus on
training and career development. Foreign language training will
be a necessary component of these kinds of activities.
The Community also has a Foreign Language Executive
Committee composed of senior intelligence professionals who
bring a broader vista to our language work and try to make sure
that foreign language is considered in discussions of policy,
requirements, planning, and budgeting.
The Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which translates
nontechnical foreign media, has made excellent use of foreign
nationals and contract employees who can be tapped when a
crisis erupts but may not become permanent employees of the
U.S. Government. Because FBIS works in the unclassified arena,
it has enjoyed a greater degree of flexibility than the
National Security Agency or other agencies who also have a
great need for linguists and translators but where security
requirements are very stringent.
Many agencies, including DIA, CIA, and INR, offer on the
job language training, and growing numbers of analysts are
being sent to full-time language training in the course of
their career. CIA, DIA, and NSA also provide incentive pay for
both the maintenance and the usage of language on the job.
There are a lot of projects to develop and use technology,
including machine translation tools, for foreign language
because of the problem of the volume of the amount of data that
has to be processed. But our current judgment is that humans
must remain a very key part of this endeavor. The trend towards
the development of machine translation tools is intended to
assist rather than replace the human language specialist or
instructor. Still, though this capability is not intended to
replace human staff, it is increasingly useful in niche areas,
such as technical publications.
In conclusion, it is clear that strong and adequate foreign
language skills are essential to the successful performance of
our foreign intelligence mission. It is also clear that,
despite some innovative efforts to address the shortfalls, we
still have a lot of work to do in this area.
I would like to thank the Members of the Subcommittee and
staff for this opportunity to address you. I will be pleased to
answer any questions.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Ms. Laipson.
Ruth Whiteside, we will go to you next.
STATEMENT OF RUTH WHITESIDE,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
FOREIGN AFFAIRS TRAINING CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Whiteside. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very
much the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the
State Department to talk about the importance of the State
Department's language program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Whiteside appears in the Appendix
on page 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American diplomats, indeed, are our first line of
diplomatic readiness. Good language skills are clearly
essential to their ability to do their jobs. And we believe
they are as essential as the planes, tanks, and ships that
provide the force readiness for our military.
Recently, in testimony before the Senate Appropriations
Committee, Secretary Albright noted, ``our Foreign Service,
Civil Service, and Foreign Service National personnel
contribute every day to American readiness--through the dangers
they help contain, the crimes they help prevent, the deals they
help close, the rights they help protect, and the travelers,
American citizens, they just plain help.'' Strong language
skills in our foreign service corps are vital to achieving
these goals.
The Foreign Service Institute represents what we believe is
the finest language teaching capability in our country. We have
the capacity to provide the necessary language training for the
U.S. Government international affairs professionals and many of
their family members.
FSI's training focuses specifically on the work-related
requirements of international affairs professionals, and the
survival needs, the ability to get along in a particular
country, of those who are unable to receive full-time language
training.
At present, as you noted, we teach 62 languages, ranging
from Albanian to Uzbek. Our largest enrollments continue to
occur in French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and Arabic. And
interestingly enough, in spite of the shifts that we will talk
about in a moment, these languages have generally been our five
since the Foreign Service Institute was founded in 1947.
For us, language training is very much a growth industry.
In fiscal year 1999, we delivered more than 800,000 hours of
language training in Washington, and that was an increase of
about 22 percent over the previous 2 years. We also enrolled
about 1,500 individuals from the State Department and a little
less than 500 individuals from other foreign affairs agencies
who come to FSI for training.
In terms of our specialist corps, those who are
secretaries, communicators, and security officers, we are also
working hard to increase language training. And our fiscal year
1999 total was about 45 percent higher than it was 2 years
before in those categories.
And another growth industry, we are working very hard, as
we have space available, to provide language training for
family members of our foreign service personnel. That training
has increased by more than 100 percent in the last 2 years.
We routinely provide individualized language training for
ambassadors going to post. For example, our Ambassador to
Tajikistan recently wrote of his ability to address the
parliament on national day in Tajiki, while his Russian and
Iranian counterparts were speaking in their own languages. And
other examples abound. Almost every few weeks we hear from
another ambassador or a deputy chief of mission who tells us
about how his language ability played favorably in the local
press or in the foreign ministry conversation.
We are also focused very much on language training for our
newest employees, junior foreign service officers. Here again
we have in recent years been able, because of modest increases
in our own intake, to increase the language training we are
able to give to new junior officers.
We are also looking at a variety of programs, and have
implemented a number of programs, to provide incentives to our
foreign service personnel to continue the languages they have,
to use the languages they have, and to acquire new languages.
We recently initiated, for an example, a new language incentive
program which provides pay incentives for using and maintaining
languages rather than the prior system which focused primarily
on simply mastering a language without regard to whether or not
it was used.
We are providing more intensive language and area training
for our mid-level specialists, and enhancing the training in
languages for all new personnel.
One of your questions was how our needs have changed over
the past 20 years. I have indicated that in many ways our core
language requirements have not changed that much. But we have
continued, as we have expanded the number of languages we
offer, to reach a number of areas that were inconceivable to us
just a few years ago.
Generally changes in language requirements reflect changes
in our foreign policy. In the early 1990's, when we opened
numerous posts in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern
Europe, we created new language requirements in many of these
countries. We are now teaching Armenian and Kazakh, Kurdish,
and Ukrainian, and a number of other languages that are new in
the last decade or so.
We are very proud of the language capabilities of our
foreign service corps and we are proud of the job we do. But
the reality is that we are often unable to provide these
individuals with the full course of training they need and the
studies they need due to the urgent staffing requirements at
our posts overseas.
A recent report of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel on
the State Department's diplomatic readiness noted that the
State Department needed to increase the size of the foreign
service by 10 to 15 percent in order to provide the kind of
training float that could assure that at any given time our
officers are able both to acquire the needed language skills
and cover the critical job requirements overseas. When we are
not able to leave officers in the full language training, it is
because there is a critical vacancy overseas that simply must
be filled.
If we are not able to address these resource needs, we
risk, as the panel's report noted, we risk relying on an
ineffective and hollowed out force to defend America's
interests. And the consequences of that, as we all recognize,
would be quite serious.
I welcome your questions, sir. And, again, I appreciate the
opportunity and the focus you have brought on this very
important subject.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Ms. Whiteside.
Christopher Mellon is Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence at the Department of Defense. Mr. Mellon,
welcome.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER K. MELLON,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Mellon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you and your staff both for providing an opportunity to discuss
a critical national security issue that rarely receives the
attention it deserves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Mellon appears in the Appendix on
page 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Defense Department's language needs for national
security are driven by our national and Defense Department
security strategies. Engagement and enlargement requires the
United States to deftly engage our foreign partners and
adversaries to shape the international security environment in
ways favorable to our interests. Clearly, foreign language
expertise is critical to our success, critical to the success
of our national security strategy.
Our needs have shifted from a singular Cold War focus on
the former Soviet Union to hot spots across the globe. The
impact on our language requirements has been profound. For
example, in the case of the former Soviet Union, which mandated
the use of Russian across 11 time zones, we are now in a
position of having to engage with 14 different Republics, most
of which insist on using their native languages.
Foreign language capabilities are essential in war-fighting
today, particularly with our growing emphasis on coalition
warfare. Foreign language skills and area expertise are
integral to or directly support every foreign intelligence
discipline and are essential factors in national security
readiness, information superiority, and coalition peacekeeping
or war-fighting missions. Information superiority is the
paradigm promulgated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and approved by the Secretary of Defense which underpins
our military strategy for the future and assumes that we will
have superior information regarding our adversaries, dominant
battlespace awareness, etc. And foreign language skills and
effective Intelligence Community is essential to achieving that
strategy in the future. At any one time, our total needs are
estimated to be 30,000 civil employees and contract translators
and interpreters dealing with over 80 different languages.
Are these needs being met? Clearly, they are not. Combatant
commands and defense agencies have been reporting significant
shortfalls in language capabilities. These unmet needs and
requirements are reflected in commander-in-chief integrated
priority lists and joint military readiness requirements
documents.
We are partially meeting our needs by operating what is
arguably the world's largest language school, the Defense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center. We provide basic
language education to about 3,000 enlisted and officer
personnel every year. We provide about 13 percent of all post-
secondary instruction in foreign language and are still
experiencing shortfalls in the less commonly taught and hard to
learn languages.
We operate this school because we have learned that the
high school and college language programs do not currently meet
our needs in terms of numbers, proficiency level, and specific
language requirements.
In response to the shortfalls, we have promulgated a
strategy for Defense Foreign Language Program which has eight
different elements that we hope will lead to an optimal level
of foreign language capability within our workforce, drawn from
the military active and reserve components as well as our
civilian employee workforce and contract services. We hope to
enable that workforce with appropriate technology to provide
qualified professional service and support across DOD component
organization lines and the mission spectrum. The Joint
Requirements Oversight Council has earlier this month given
their support to the strategy and the Defense Planning Guidance
for 2002-2007 directing our efforts to further develop and
provide the policy and program guidance required for
implementation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I have
tried to condense my remarks. I hope the prepared statement is
fully responsive to the questions that you asked.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Mellon.
David Alba is Assistant Director of the Investigative
Services Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. Alba.
STATEMENT OF DAVID E. ALBA,\1\ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
Mr. Alba. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk to you about the FBI's foreign language
program. Among other things, I am responsible for the FBI's
foreign language program itself. I am also fluent in Spanish
and can speak first-hand of the value of foreign language
expertise in law enforcement as well as in national security
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Alba appears in the Appendix on
page 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1990 Census figures show that almost 14 percent, or
approximately 30 million people, in the United States speak a
foreign language at home. Many of these people will be victims
or subjects or witnesses in our investigations.
When you look at the FBI's major initiatives, such as
foreign counterintelligence, international terrorism,
international drug investigations, and multinational white
collar crime, foreign language ability becomes even more
critical. The FBI looks primarily at three different sources
for its foreign language support. That is the special agents
themselves, language specialists who are full-time employees,
and contract linguists. Fifteen years ago, the language needs
of the FBI were predictable, but today things have changed
dramatically. Spanish continues to be one of our seven critical
language needs. The other six are Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,
Korean, Farsi, and Vietnamese. The FBI never has enough agents
or linguists who speak these critical languages.
A few times a year, the FBI receives a request for a
language we have never heard of. These include Twi, Avar, and
Gypsy. Sometimes it is just a challenge identifying the
language, but it is more difficult to find somebody who can
translate a tape or a document from that language into English,
often under pressure of short deadlines.
Court authorized electronic surveillance is highly
effective and often involves a foreign language. Criminals
usually use coded language to cover their activity and this
complicates the issue even further. In 1993, you may remember
the plot to bomb several New York landmarks by radical
followers of an Egyptian sheik. The code word used for the
bombs was the Arabic word ``Hadduta,'' which literally means a
child's bedtime story when translated from Arabic. It sounded
innocent enough, but it became obvious that something was wrong
when the suspects talked about ``preparing four Hadduta,''
``renting a warehouse for the Hadduta,'' and ``buying oil and
fertilizer for the Haddutas.''
We know that not all people who speak a foreign language
are able to translate, or even fewer are able to interpret.
These are very difficult and separate skills. Last year, the
FBI language specialists and contract linguists translated over
a million pages of documents and countless hours of audio
material. With the growing demand for certain languages, the
work continues to back up. When we are talking about
unaddressed work coming from critical national security-related
investigations, the implications are very sobering.
One problem we have is being able to keep some of our
contract linguists busy enough so they won't be looking for
other jobs. In some languages the volume of work never ends,
but in others the amount of work may be intensive only for a
few months. And when we need the language again, often after a
period of months or even years, our contract linguists have
found other jobs, and now we must start recruiting, testing,
and processing all over again, which is very time consuming.
The FBI is now working with other Department of Justice
components to develop common language proficiency and security
standards for linguists who will have access to law enforcement
sensitive information. That problem does not necessarily exist
in the Intelligence Community but it does exist in law
enforcement. The project is to create a database accessible to
law enforcement components that contain all known linguistic
resources by specialty--for example, an interpreter,
translator, or monitor, and also give language skill levels
and, an important thing for us, security clearances.
We are always looking for new and innovative ways to find
linguists and process foreign languages. We have a very active
foreign language training program. Another source of support,
something that has been mentioned already today, is machine
translation. I have been told that in some languages it may be
as accurate as 80 percent, but still you need a linguist to
prepare it. So in essence, what it does, especially on
documents, is kind of like a document triage. It does help.
The language requirements have multiplied several times
over. For example, agents we have working on the border now who
do not speak Spanish cannot take complaints in Spanish,
interview victims or witnesses, nor can they develop informants
in Spanish. Because of the influx of Spanish-speaking and other
immigrants into the United States, this situation is happening
not only on the border but in the rest of the country.
I appreciate the opportunity to brief the Subcommittee on
things that are critical to FBI operations. I will be happy to
answer any questions.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
I appreciate so much the overview that we have received
from this panel of witnesses. It is, I think, an excellent way
to start our hearings to equip us with a knowledge-base to make
some determinations about what policy changes or programmatic
changes need to be made in the Federal Government to help meet
the needs that we have for those who can speak foreign
languages and at the level of proficiency that we need
throughout our government.
One thing that occurred to me while Ms. Laipson was
testifying was whether or not we have enough resources in terms
of appropriated funds being provided to the Central
Intelligence Agency for its language training needs. I also
serve on the Appropriations Committee so it immediately
occurred to me. You talked about the machine translation tools
that are used now. These cost money I know. People who are
contract linguists or instructors who actually work directly
for the Federal Government have to be paid. What is the cost
impact on your budget, and are those costs being met at the
current levels of funding?
Ms. Laipson. All of the initiatives that I mentioned are
currently funded. And in many cases, I think some of these
projects are actually quite modest in their cost as compared to
much larger systems and programs.
But in terms of any upcoming needs, I expect that you will
see that in the build for the budget for 2002 and it will be
discussed at the kind of program detail level with our
oversight committee. At the present, the initiatives that I did
mention are not lacking for the startup funds that are needed.
Senator Cochran. Does your agency, because it is involved
in intelligence-gathering and classified documents and
activities that are secret and not available for general public
knowledge, do you have special problems in dealing with
language skills and getting access to those who can translate
unusual languages and the like?
Ms. Laipson. I cannot speak for all of the agencies, but my
impression is that some of our requirements are similar to
those at the State Department and the Defense Department, where
for many positions a security clearance is required and,
clearly, that takes time. So sometimes a need emerges and we
may identify people with those language skills that have not
worked in government. The time it takes to get them into the
system is certainly affected by the security requirements, but
that is not unique to the Intelligence Community.
Senator Cochran. Is there a government-wide agency or
resource available to the FBI, the CIA, State Department, or
DOD for emergency access if you need something addressed on an
emergency basis, a translation of an unusual language that Mr.
Alba brought up, for example? Can anybody access that resource,
or does each department have its own place to go for that kind
of thing?
Ms. Laipson. Well, our Intelligence Community, which does
include the FBI, is now working on making sure that there is a
database that cross-references language capabilities in the
different agencies. So if an acute need were to arise for one
agency, they might be able to either borrow or share the
available translating capabilities of another agency. I cannot
say that it is up and running in all of its potential capacity,
but people are thinking exactly along those lines of trying to
pool the available resources and making sure other agencies are
informed of where the pockets of language capability are across
the system.
Senator Cochran. When we were hearing about the fact that
we have got a crisis and the problem is getting worse and not
better in terms of the capability of staffing positions with
people who are qualified in foreign languages, is that
oversold, or is that really an accurate description of the
situation, in your opinion? Is it overstated, Ms. Laipson?
Ms. Laipson. Overstated?
Senator Cochran. In terms of the CIA's experience, whether
we have a crisis or not, whether the problem is getting worse
or better. I am hearing from Ms. Whiteside that it sounds like
we are doing a very good job of helping deal with the need for
language training in the Federal Government. What is your
impression?
Ms. Laipson. I think it is hard to generalize. Clearly, if
you took the Somalia incident or Serbia, you could come up with
discreet periods where for a period of months it could
accurately be described as a crisis and the lack of ability to
get on board enough of the linguists and translators that were
needed for a discreet operation or a discreet period of time. I
think if we look at it across the board, at least in terms of
the intelligence mission, I would describe it as something less
than a crisis. It is a chronic need, it is a chronic desire to
be playing at a more robust level, but I think that I would
reserve the word crisis for more narrow specific episodes that
were time-limited.
Senator Cochran. I know that you have a previous commitment
and you need to keep that commitment, and I am sensitive to
that. So if you need to go now, you are free to go. We
appreciate your being here at the hearing. Thank you very much.
Ms. Laipson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Ms. Whiteside, you mentioned that training
of foreign language skills in the State Department is actually
increasing, not declining. You are training more people, you
are it seems to me responding to the need for greater
proficiency in foreign languages in the State Department. Is
that an accurate summation or reaction to your testimony
generally?
Ms. Whiteside. I think, if I may, sir, I would make the
distinction between--in the first place, yes. In the last
couple of years we have been able to begin to reverse a pretty
long decline in our ability to expand language training. We
believe we have a lot of capacity for language training at the
Foreign Service Institute.
Our frustration in the State Department, the resource issue
is in many cases the people to train. We are still sending
officers overseas with less training than we would like them to
have. We are giving them in many cases more training than they
have had before, but we are not meeting what we would believe
is our national security need for the training they really
need. And that gap is the critical decisions that have to be
made between leaving a critical job open overseas or sending an
officer who may not have had the opportunity to get the full
capacity of language training they need to operate at the top
level.
Senator Cochran. One other impression I had of your
testimony was that we could actually help this problem by
providing more funds for staff needs generally at the State
Department rather than trying to target funds to a foreign
language training system. Is that right? You were talking about
the fact that you had to rush people over into different posts
all over the country and you had to take them out of language
training to get them there.
Ms. Whiteside. Yes, sir.
Senator Cochran. That that was a bigger problem than----
Ms. Whiteside. I would never want to say, sir, that the
Foreign Service Institute does not need and could not use more
money. But I absolutely agree that the primary need at the
State Department, we are a people agency and diplomacy means
putting our people on the ground, and our critical need is to
have a larger reserve of people so that we can meet those needs
and meet the training requirements that those people have. So I
would put increasing the staffing needs of the State
Department, for me, that would be at the top of the list.
Senator Cochran. It occurs to me, just from my own personal
experience, that at some of our embassies and offices around
the world we have spent a lot of money recently on security and
protection and trying to respond to the terrorist threats and
the reality of terrorist incidents that we have confronted. Is
this draining funds, do you think, that could be used for
staffing and language training and other activities? Is this
one of the problems that we have right now, the expense that we
are having to bear to deal with the threats of terrorist
activities?
Ms. Whiteside. Sir, I believe dealing with those threats to
the security of our own employees and American citizens
overseas is a top priority of the State Department and one that
Secretary Albright has given a great deal of attention to. So
for me, the issue is not could we move money from the security
of our embassies to the training of our people, the issue is we
need all of those things. We need well-trained people, and we
need to assure them that when they go overseas they will be as
safe as they can possibly be.
I would just, if I might, make one other comment on the
security side. I would emphasize the importance of languages to
our security profile. As our officers, our security officers,
our administrative officers have the ability to deal with local
police in the local language, to deal with local intelligence
counterparts and counterterrorism counterparts in their
languages, they are that much more capable of assuring that we
are addressing the security issues than they are when their
language skills are not at that top level.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Mellon, you talked about the need to
start early in terms of language training, that we need to do a
better job in our schools, that you are not getting the kind of
trained person coming out of high school and college with the
language capacity that the Nation really needs at the
Department of Defense. I think you are absolutely right about
that. But it seems to me that schools are doing a better job
than they used to. It was unusual when I was going to school
for a school in my State to have foreign language courses. Now,
more and more schools do have those courses and students are
learning foreign languages at earlier ages. My daughter, for
example, started out, I think, in kindergarten, certainly the
first grade learning French. There was a French component in
all of her classes all the way through to the 12th grade. She
ended up with a major in French and she sounds fluent to me. I
think she is. I can't understand her. [Laughter.]
But aren't we doing better on that though than we used to?
Mr. Mellon. Yes, sir, I think we probably are. My deputy,
one of his children goes to a magnet school in Fairfax and he
is in an emersion program where all of his courses are in
German. And as near as I can tell, he is fluent in German. I am
not in a position to assess that; we have not administered the
DFLP proficiency test to him yet. But that is very encouraging
and very positive.
I think one of the key points in considering our
requirements are and what is at issue here is that in this
changing world environment the levels of language expertise
that were adequate many times in years past do not cut it
today. When we are talking about counterproliferation and
counterterrorism and counternarcotics, it requires a degree of
real fluency in many cases to engage with these people or
understand documents, interpret them, translate other
information. So when it was a more static situation and you had
more rigorous sorts of conventional military units, I am
talking from a DOD standpoint now, reporting in standardized
sorts of ways about what they were doing, you could teach
people key words and get a better grip and deal with a more
narrow, limited set of issues. This is a much more challenging
environment.
So I think some of those trends are extremely positive and
we are hopeful that in the future there will be more Americans
with these kind of higher degrees of expertise to support our
national strategy.
Senator Cochran. Along with advances in better education, I
think we have also realized that we have better technology and
new computer technology and related technology. Ms. Laipson
talked about machine translation tools. Do you use these as
well, and do you have the funds that are necessary in order to
acquire these tools to help you do a better job?
Mr. Mellon. Yes, sir, we invest fairly considerable
resources through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
and other agencies in various kinds of machine translation
capabilities. They are a partial answer to our needs and to our
requirements. We are reviewing right now some internal
proposals for increased funding for language which we want to
put forward and advocate in our internal process.
Some of the examples, probably the clearest examples of
Defense Department language skills being brought to bear, maybe
some of the most salient ones, are ones that also show the
limits of machine translation. For example, during the conflict
in Panama, there were a number of instances where violence was
averted because we had individuals with foreign language skills
who could talk to a commander who was in a garrison or an
individual that was under fire as we were approaching the kind
of final moments where it was either you guys surrender or we
are going to have to open fire sort of situation, and they were
able to reconcile the situation without violence. Similar sorts
of things happened in the Persian Gulf. In fact, the broad
spectrum of that coalition with nations from all over the world
placed extraordinary demands on the central command for
language requirements.
Again, the automated tools can help us in those situations,
but there is no substitute for having people who can talk face
to face and engage.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Alba, when you were talking about some
of the real life experiences that law enforcement personnel
have at the FBI, I could not help but remember sitting in on a
class at the University of Madrid one time, I just happened to
be there, and it was a class where they taught colloquial
Spanish, as a matter of fact. And I remember a phrase that the
instructor was trying to explain, ``Sabelo todo,'' which means
somebody who is a know-it-all. I loved that. I have remembered
it ever since 1963, or whenever that was. [Laughter.]
And I think it sometimes, but I try not to ever say it to
anybody. But these are examples.
I wonder if in the language training courses that are
available for FBI agents there is an emphasis on real-life
situations that you run into and phrases that are used. You
mentioned the World Trade Center. That was fascinating. Is
there a special discipline that equips agents with their
understanding of colloquial phrases that they are likely to run
into in their line of work that you might not run into if you
were in another environment?
Mr. Alba. That usually comes from experience. When you are
trying to learn a language, it is tough enough just to learn
how to say good morning, good bye and remember how that goes.
But when it comes to picking up the subtleties of the language
and codes like that, we have made efforts at times to put
together a glossary of those terms. But they change quite a bit
because people put their own terms to it. It is very difficult
to be able to teach that to somebody else. They usually have to
have it from experience.
It becomes very important to have that in cases where life
is at stake. If there is an extortion or a hostage-taking
situation, we almost need to be able to get the correct
translation as accurately as you can with some of these
subtleties.
Senator Cochran. I asked earlier about the centralized
availability of a resource for emergency translation. Is there
a reliance by the FBI on such a database that we heard
mentioned, or do you find that it is more appropriate that you
have your own in-house capability for this kind of thing, the
unusual languages that crop up occasionally? You mentioned
three and I had never heard of any of the three. So I am
impressed that we even know what those are.
Mr. Alba. Originally, I guess we didn't know what they
were, but we found some help and got that. We rely on some of
the more common languages from Defense Department when we do
not have enough personnel. Our effort is going to be to develop
that. But on these other languages, now that we know they
exist, we can make arrangements to have them available or make
arrangements to develop resources. But for those that we do not
know yet, we can only try to predict. But that can also be very
difficult as to how do you go about developing and preparing
for that? Nevertheless, I think it is somewhat necessary.
Senator Cochran. Are there any particular obstacles to
hiring linguists? Are we hard-pressed to compete with the
private sector, is this a problem? Is the pay better in other
areas of our society than teaching languages to government
employees? Is that something you can answer? This is really for
everybody because it does cover all government agencies. What
is your experience?
Mr. Alba. The same problem we have in the government is the
same problem the private sector is experiencing. As
globalization and mobility and communications are improving,
they are having the same difficulty. And, of course, quite
often they can pay more money than we can, so that definitely
becomes a problem. Sometimes people may come into the
government and get training and then they go out and we lose
them to the private sector.
Senator Cochran. Yes.
Mr. Mellon, what is your experience?
Mr. Mellon. Yes, sir, it is a problem. It is more acute for
some languages than it is for others. Individuals who have rare
foreign language skills, say in Chinese or Japanese where there
is an expanding economy and expanding trade, lots of corporate
investment and so forth, are more likely to get offers to, hey,
come work for my corporation than somebody who works in a
region that is not experiencing that kind of growth and so
forth. So we certainly do encounter that. It bothers me to
generalize. I would say a lot of it depends on the individual
language.
Senator Cochran. Ms. Whiteside.
Ms. Whiteside. I would agree. There are two kinds of
issues. One is finding teachers. It is not the question of
losing teachers to the private sector, it is finding them at
all. Our experience sometimes is in 62 languages it is very
difficult simply to find a teacher. And then the pay is another
issue. It is also a problem though in this kind of economy
finding specific languages, some of the ones mentioned,
Chinese, for an example, where there is a great demand for
strong Chinese linguists and the government salary scales are
not always competitive.
Senator Cochran. Ms. Laipson.
Ms. Laipson. I think when we are looking at people who are
pure translators, looking for that very technical skill, we are
clearly competing with the private sector that may need the
same skills. But it strikes me that we are looking for a mix of
skills in which the sense of mission makes government service
different than non-government work. So sometimes we are
appealing to people who do have a sense of excitement about
working, using a foreign language and applying it in a national
security setting where they feel that they are contributing to
national decisionmaking. I think that what we are looking for
is people that see language as part of a cluster of skills, and
that therefore working in the government allows them to use all
of their skills, not just the language skill.
Senator Cochran. As we conclude the hearing, I am curious
to know what each of you would think we should consider as a
program change or a resource emphasis to help meet the growing
need that we have in all of our defense-related and security
agencies for language skills, language training. Does anything
occur to you specifically that you could recommend if you were
up here proposing a new piece of legislation or a new program
or funding with greater emphasis? What would you do?
Ms. Laipson.
Ms. Laipson. It seems to me that this hearing, in and of
itself, has been enormously useful. I think it helps remind
people and raise people's consciousness of the importance of
this issue. Obviously, I think individual agencies have
initiatives underway or have wanted to do initiatives that
might require some more support and funding. Clearly, retaining
the workforce that we have and recognizing the skills that they
have is part of the issue. One of the issue that you are
planning to address in subsequent hearings, making sure that
language training is available for young people so that when
they enter their professional service they are bringing the
skills that the government needs, is a long-term strategy that
is very much warranted. Obviously for the people who are
already in-house, some of these incentive pay schemes, etc., I
think are important to help us retain the workforce that we
have.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Ms. Whiteside.
Ms. Whiteside. I think bringing to a broader consciousness
in our country the critical nature of language issues in the
world we live. I like what Mr. Mellon said in terms of even
though we are all doing more, and we are very proud of what we
are doing, the world is so much more complex that the target is
always moving. I think the emphasis on learning languages at
younger ages is always good. Our own experts say that the best
predictor of success in learning a language is to have learned
a language. And so when people come to us and we need to teach
them a very difficult language that they are not likely to have
learned in high school or college, if they have learned
Spanish, French, other world languages earlier on, they have a
sense of what learning language is all about and they are much
better students. So I think the emphasis on language training
across the board is critical for all the government. For the
State Department, I think our interest continues to be to have
the people to train and still meet our requirements.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Mr. Mellon.
Mr. Mellon. Yes, sir. I hope and expect that you will
receive a budget request from the Defense Department that will
ask for your support for increased funding for language
programs within the State Department. More broadly, I would
strongly agree that we would welcome programs that will help to
produce more American citizens with high degrees of language
proficiency. That is far beyond my ken in terms of education
policy, but obviously we would benefit enormously. I think that
some of the latest research suggests that in fact there are
organic reasons why it is very difficult later in life to adopt
and achieve a high degree of proficiency in a foreign language.
I happen to have had a need to review some of this information
recently and it appears that there is a certain plasticity in
the way that we are wired and in our neurons and so forth at an
early age that starts to drop off at about age seven or eight.
[Laughter.]
Early exposure actually helps the way your neuro
architecture sets up. In any event, early in life that kind of
exposure to education and training helps to produce the kind of
people that we think we are going to need, which is more and
more fluency to deal with these complex issues like
counterproliferation and counternarcotics and terrorism and so
forth. So we agree that raising the awareness is a very helpful
thing to do. And we are going to work within our budget and
activities to try to place increased emphasis on this.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Mr. Alba.
Mr. Alba. I guess I can repeat what he said. If you see a
budget request from us to increase funding, I hope you keep in
mind what we discussed today.
Senator Cochran. I will.
Mr. Alba. And I know you have other needs, too.
Senator Cochran. Yes. We will.
Mr. Alba. But it is interesting, as we have foreign
officials coming in from different countries, how many of them
speak English. It is somewhat embarrassing at times. But
fortunately we do have a few agents who can speak their native
languages. I have made it a point to tell our people that I am
trying to learn another language at least, and that I will pick
it up from there, to encourage them to do the same. I think it
will make a better world to live in. It gives us insight into
different cultures that we now have here in the United States,
and I think it is very important. I appreciate the emphasis you
have focused on it.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. I think this has been
an excellent hearing, a wonderful way to start our effort to
examine and understand more fully what the problem is and what
the challenges are, and then to take a look at what some of the
options are that we should explore and emphasize in terms of
Federal policies and programs and funding levels to help
improve the situation. I appreciate so much your all being
here.
We have some materials that we are going to put in the
record, including experiences that have indicated how serious a
challenge it is to understand foreign languages and the
national security context, our experiences in Bosnia, in
Kosovo, other countries where we have had experiences that
illustrate this importance to our national security effort. So
we will put those materials in the record to lay a groundwork
for our additional inquiry that we will make later on.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The referenced materials appears in the Appendix on page 110-
127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will schedule another hearing. I do not think we
actually have it scheduled. Oh, we do. September 19. And do we
have a title for it, to kind of jazz it up?
Part II? That's the title? OK. [Laughter.]
Until then, the Subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Subcommittee recessed, to
reconvene on Tuesday, September 19, 2000.]
THE STATE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE CAPABILITIES IN NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services,
of the Committee on Government Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 342, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Thad Cochran, Chairman
of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Cochran.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. The hearing will come to order. We
continue our hearings on the state of foreign language
capabilities in national security and the Federal Government.
At our first hearing last week we heard from
representatives of the State Department, the Department of
Defense, CIA, and the FBI about the needs of those departments
and agencies for personnel who are proficient in foreign
languages.
We heard about some of the shortcomings and some of the
ways they are working to help meet the needs for personnel in
these areas and the relationship that has to our national
security interests.
One of the questions I asked of the witnesses last week was
what new Federal policy or legislation would you recommend to
improve our preparedness in foreign languages. Each witness
mentioned the importance of language instruction in elementary
and secondary schools.
One panel member said the best indicator of how well a
person will learn, how quickly they will learn and how
efficiently they will learn a foreign language is whether or
not they have already learned one at some point in their
education, whether they attended school or were proficient in a
second language.
The fact of the matter is that there are obviously needs
for our education system to respond in this area. Today, we
will examine the trends in foreign language education.
We hope to be able to learn what the Federal Government is
doing or should be doing to ensure that our national security
needs, which are dependent upon language skills, are being met.
We are very pleased to have as our first witness this
morning the Hon. Richard W. Riley, who is Secretary of the
Department of Education. He is accompanied by Scott Fleming,
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
We have a second panel which will include Dr. Robert
Slater, Director of the National Security Education Program;
Dr. Dan Davidson, President of the American Councils for
International Education; Martha Abbott who is Foreign Language
Coordinator, Fairfax County Public Schools here in Fairfax,
Virginia and who is also a member of the Board of the Joint
National Committee on Languages; and Dr. Frances Coleman, who
is an Eisenhower Fellow and a teacher and technology
coordinator for Ackerman High School and Weir Attendance Center
in Choctaw County, Mississippi.
Secretary Riley, we appreciate very much your attendance.
We hope you will speak to this issue and we will have an
opportunity to ask you some questions.
We know you have a tight schedule. As soon as my questions
and your answers are completed, you can leave. But thank you so
much for coming here.
Thank you also for your visit. We surely appreciated your
coming to Mississippi. It was several months ago now, I guess.
You picked a hot time of year to go down to Mississippi. We
appreciate your visit to our State and your assistance in some
of our programs down there has been very welcomed. We thank you
for that.
You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. RILEY,\1\ SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY SCOTT FLEMING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Secretary Riley. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
real honor for me to be here and talk about the importance of
foreign language instruction and how language knowledge can
really affect our effective role in world affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Riley appears in the Appendix on
page 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be my last testimony before a Subcommittee of
Congress. It is a pleasure to be before you, if that is true.
The benefits of helping Americans acquire a second or third
language are really significant. Strengthening this one area,
foreign language instruction, helps to build a better work
force, to improve our national security and diplomacy and, as
research shows, to lift other areas of education as well.
That is why I am convinced that we should do everything we
can to ensure that we have high quality foreign language
instruction in America's schools.
Now, let me focus on three benefits of promoting what I
call ``biliteracy.'' The first benefit is a better workforce.
Today, more of America's countries do business in other
countries. More of our citizens regularly speak a language
other than English in their home.
We should welcome these changes so long as learning English
is our first priority. But knowing an additional language can
make our Nation stronger. We should make sure that those who
live in the United States and speak more than one language are
valued. We should think of a second language as an asset for a
student, not a barrier.
Now, let me be clear though, knowing a second language is
not a substitute for mastering English. But with their language
skills, people who are biliterate may enjoy greater
opportunities in our increasingly diverse Nation and command a
greater salary in the marketplace.
The second benefit is stronger national security, a
subject, you have been, of course, very interested in. Helping
young people learn foreign languages can, I think, even make
our Nation safer.
If more Americans understand the language and the culture
of others, I believe that we will be more likely to avoid
conflicts and reach across cultural difference to form
international friendships and partnerships.
There are also clear advantages in having members of our
armed services who are biliterate.
The third benefit is improved academic achievement for our
students. We have strong evidence today that studying a foreign
language has a ripple effect, helping to improve student
performance in other subjects.
The European Union has a goal for their students to learn
three languages and surely we can help students remain
competitive by learning English and at least one more language.
Here is what research says: Children who have studied a
foreign language in elementary school score higher on
standardized tests in reading, language arts and mathematics.
They also show greater cognitive development in areas such
as mental flexibility, creativity, tolerance and higher order
thinking skills, four qualities that are very desirable in
today's workplace.
So far, our Nation has not done enough to help our children
learn second and third languages. The United States lags behind
many other developed countries in providing foreign language
study to elementary and secondary school students.
Research suggests that students acquire foreign languages
more easily when instruction begins at early grades. Despite
this evidence, few elementary schools in the United States
offer foreign language instruction.
Increasing our efforts in two areas will help us catch up
with other nations in foreign language instruction and provide
the excellent, complete education that our children deserve.
First of all, we recently have promoted a number of changes
at the Department of Education to improve foreign language
instruction in the United States. Our proposal to
reauthorization the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA), would
set a national goal ``that 25 percent of all public elementary
schools offer high quality, comprehensive foreign language
programs by 2005 and that 40 percent offer such programs by
2010.''
Our ESEA reauthorization proposals includes provisions that
would help students to make a smooth transition in their
foreign language studies as they advance from elementary school
to middle and on to high school.
Another program is that when America's elementary schools
offer foreign language instruction, typically it is an
introductory exposure to the language. So our ESEA
reauthorization proposal also focuses on ensuring that the
elementary school foreign language instruction is more
challenging and more meaningful.
Our fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $14 million
for Foreign Language Assistance, which is $6 million above the
fiscal year 2000 level. The increase reflects the growing
important of foreign language skills, which I have outlined.
The second area in which we can increase our effort and
improve foreign language instruction is what are called ``dual
language'' programs. These differ from regular foreign language
instruction in that students are immersed in English and a
second language, rather than being taught the second language
as a separate subject.
In dual language programs, approximately equal numbers of
English-speaking and non-English speaking students participate
in classrooms, with every student challenged to meet high
academic standards for each subject in both languages.
Again, this approach is backed by research showing that
students in high quality dual-language programs have higher
achievement than their peers who are not enrolled in a language
program.
I have called on educators and community leaders urging
them to create more dual language schools. Right now there are
about 260 in the United States. I would like to see 1,000 dual
language schools by 2005.
To help meet this goal, the Department announced on
September 1st that we would be setting aside $20 million
through the Bilingual Education program for two special
competitions for dual language projects.
I am pleased that the budget plan that the President
submitted to Congress for fiscal year 2001 would increase
funding for bilingual education including dual immersion
programs, to $296 million and increase our investment in
foreign language education by 75 percent.
We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that
bilingual programs make a positive difference in helping
students learn English and achieve academically.
While my formal testimony focuses specifically on the work
we have undertaken to enhance foreign language skills at the K-
12 level, which is what you indicated was something you were
very interested in, I would be remiss to not briefly discuss
important work supported by the Department in the post-
secondary area.
Under the International Education and Foreign Language
Studies Program, the Department seeks to strengthen the
capability and performance of American education in foreign
language and international studies. These programs originated
in the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and reflect the
need to address high priorities critical to international
security and to the conduct of business in the world economy.
Through the domestic component of the International
Education Foreign Language Studies Program, we provide
resources to institutions for higher education to strengthen
instruction programs, to fund fellowships, to focus on
effective teaching strategies, and assist in curriculum
development.
Studies show that the Federal assistance is most important
in otherwise neglected languages. A lot of them I could
mention, Swahili, for example, Indonesian, Serbo-Croatian,
those kinds of languages. You really have to have some kind of
special effort to make sure that this kind of knowledge is
obtained.
Large proportions of students in those languages are
supported by Federal programs. Similarly, the Department
assists in overseas training of U.S. citizens in these areas
through faculty research abroad, group training abroad,
doctorial dissertation work abroad and special bilateral
projects with foreign countries.
I am so pleased that the appropriations process appears
headed toward meeting our budget request and possibly
surpassing our request for these very important domestic
programs.
I suspect the Chairman might be somewhat responsible for
those favorable results.
I would like to emphasize that President Clinton and his
staff have been leaders in the effort to improve foreign
language acquisition.
At the beginning of the administration we made competency
in foreign languages part of the Goals 2000 Education America
Act. We added two things, I think, to what the governors had in
theirs. One was foreign languages and the other was arts. Then
I think later civics was added.
In 1993, we provided funding to four national language
organizations to develop national standards in foreign
language. These standards were issued in 1996. They have given
us a strong foundation for improving foreign language
acquisition.
In addition, on April 19 of this year, the White House
released a memorandum on international education policy, which
directs our Department of Education and other agencies to work
to improve international education.
The memorandum specifically addresses the need to improve
foreign language learning, including efforts to achieve
biliteracy and to enhance the Nation's capacity to produce
foreign language experts.
Technology and demographics are changing the world and
changing the United States. As public officials, I think we
should adapt our education policies to reflect these changes.
By working together, we can encourage better foreign language
instruction in our Nation's schools.
If we do that, we will strengthen our workforce, make our
Nation more secure in the world, and elevate the level of
education for America's children.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to respond.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I compliment you
for supporting the increases in funding for foreign language
training and education.
I am also pleased to hear about your support for college
level and postgraduate foreign language training as well, at
colleges and universities in our country.
I noticed from my notes, preparing for this hearing, that
over the last 4 years the Appropriations Committee in the
Senate, with the support of the House committee as well, was
successful in increasing funding for the Foreign Language
Assistance Program, which is an elementary and secondary level
program, from $5 million to $8 million.
These were not included in the administration's budget, but
this year the fiscal year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services
Bill will include $14 million--that is our anticipation--for
this program.
We have introduced, too--to try to help support these
increases--a Foreign Language Education Improvement Act
Amendment of 1999 which increases the funding authorization and
puts special emphasis on schools serving disadvantaged
students.
I am curious to know if the Department is using Title I or
any other program to provide special support for those schools
with high concentrations of disadvantaged students in providing
foreign language classes.
Secretary Riley. Well, under this Foreign Language
Assistance Program there is no specific emphasis on low-income
students. However, most of the recipients are Title I schools.
So, you do see a strong connection between disadvantaged areas
and these programs and the same is true with bilingual
education programs.
So, the answer, I think, Mr. Chairman is yes, it ends up
going in that direction, but certainly if certain language was
in there it would make it very clear. But Title I is where the
Federal Government, of course, is involved primarily, and that
is where most of these funds go.
Title I, by the way, has gotten very flexible. I think you
are indicating that, too. We are very free and now we have FLEX
in most States and we have the potential of getting it in all
50 States. Of course, you can have waivers on Title I use of
money if it is something that a State, a school district is
particularly interested in.
So, we do have a lot of flexibility in Title I now and we
are very free about giving waivers where local people have
emphasized a particular thing and certainly this would be very
important.
Senator Cochran. My personal recollection, growing up in
Mississippi as I did in a small rural community school in the
outskirts of town--that meant out in the country, but we called
it ``the outskirts.'' It sounded better. But we didn't have
teachers who just taught foreign languages.
The teachers who taught foreign languages in our schools
basically stayed one chapter ahead of us in the book. They may
have taken a course or two in college, and I am not saying
their instruction was not good. It was very good, I thought.
That was my experience. I am talking about Latin and Spanish.
They were both taught in my high school, even though it was a
pretty small school.
Is that a problem that cuts across geography and regional
lines, an inadequate number of trained professionals who teach
foreign languages and how do we encourage more who are
proficient in foreign languages to teach in the elementary and
secondary schools of our country?
Secretary Riley. Well, you are exactly right. Of course, I,
like you, took Latin in high school. I never have been sorry
about it. I have felt it was a tremendous background. I took
Spanish in college. I have always felt like it was a very good
learning process to understand English and other languages.
Right now, the numbers we have in the mid-1990's, in the
1993, 1994, 1995 area, show that approximately 25 percent of
the schools that sought to hire foreign language teachers were
unable to find them. That is a very large percentage of
something that a school district is seeking to find and simply
can't find them in their community or attract people in. So,
that is a real problem.
One of the critical needs for teachers, as you know, we are
going to need over two million teachers over the next 10 years,
four critical needs are math, science, special education, and
bilingual teachers, teachers who speak more than one language
as the country is becoming more and more diverse.
So, it is a critical need and you are seeing a lot of
school districts and a lot of States are doing special things
to attract teachers who meet these critical needs and in
critical areas, very poor areas, some rural, a lot of them
inner-city. Those are critical, needy areas and those critical
needs for teachers and certainly language is one of them.
Senator Cochran. There is, as you pointed out, support at
the college and university level. Tell me how this works and
what the funding levels of these programs are. How does a
college or university qualify to receive Federal funds for
Federal programs in that area?
Secretary Riley. Well, the funding for the big program in
postsecondary, the domestic programs, as they are called, is
for 2001, the administration proposed $62 million for those
programs, the same as fiscal year 2000.
The overseas program that I referred to, $10 million,
proposed an increase of $3.32 million over fiscal year 2000.
Another program, International Public Policy, is like $1
million. It is a small program that deals primarily with
encouraging African-Americans and other minorities to get into
international service. It is kind of a related thing.
In the domestic programs grants are awarded to support
centers, programs, fellowships and institutions of higher
learning to produce increased numbers of trained personnel in
research, in foreign language and so forth. Those are very
sought-after programs.
The percentage of schools offering foreign language
instruction is, I think, an interesting point. Some 86 percent
of our secondary schools and 31 percent of elementary schools
offer some kind of language instruction. So, it is not
something that is not out there.
But these higher education programs are really what we
build on. They are, we think, very, very important.
Senator Cochran. There is one program that I don't recall
hearing about. It is not referred to in my notes here. But my
personal experience is that the Teacher Corps is something that
the Federal Government participates in and local governments
match some funds and try to place teachers of foreign
languages, math, and science in areas of States where they have
an inadequate number or just none whatsoever.
I know my daughter taught French at Brookhaven High School
in Mississippi, a public high school where there was no French
teacher and they wouldn't have had one, I guess, but for this
program. The Department of Education in our State participated.
We had a private foundation that provided some money. I think
Federal funds were involved, too. Is that a Federal program and
are you still supporting the Teacher Corps program?
Secretary Riley. Scott says he doesn't think it is now. It
was in the past. I think Federal dollars were used to get the
program started and then I think they phased out.
Senator Cochran. I see. Well, thank you very much for
giving us an overview of the Federal role in which you see are
some areas of emphasis where we can play an important role in
helping to meet this very important need for foreign language
education and training and teacher recruitment as well.
Thank you for your service as Secretary of Education.
Secretary Riley. I thank you and I thank you for your
service and I appreciate your interest in this very important
education subject.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Our next panel will include, as I mentioned earlier, Dr.
Robert Slater, Director of the National Security Education
Program; Dr. Dan Davidson, President of the American Councils
for International Education; Martha Abbott, Foreign Language
Coordinator of Fairfax County Public Schools; Dr. Frances
McLean Coleman, a teacher and technology coordinator at
Ackerman High Security and Weir Attendance Center in
Mississippi. We welcome you to our hearing. Thank you for
responding to our invitation to be here this morning to discuss
the issues that we have under review.
I am going to ask Dr. Slater to begin. Let me point out
just for information that prior to joining the National
Security Education Program at the Defense Intelligence College
in Washington, D.C., Dr. Slater was Director of Research and
was responsible for developing a major program of research
directed at improving interactions between the academic and
defense communities on important third world issues.
He also served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of
Defense on matters related to foreign language capacity in the
Federal Government. He has also spent 11 years with the private
sector as a Senior Research Consultant.
He is a Ph.D. in International Relations from the School of
International Service at the American University. He has
written and published and edited, as you all might expect,
books and articles on the subject of global transformation and
revolution in political change. We have a copy of your
statement that will be put in the record in full. We encourage
you to make such summary comments that you think would be
helpful to our hearing this morning.
Dr. Slater, welcome. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT O. SLATER,\1\ DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY
EDUCATION PROGRAM
Mr. Slater. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Slater with attachments appears
in the Appendix on page 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In testimony provided to this Subcommittee last week you
gathered some important evidence concerning the increasing
importance of language competencies for the Federal Government.
The rapidly increasing complexities of globalization have
exposed the need for overhauling the current training and
recruiting system in the Federal and academic sectors,
including increased funding for goal-oriented academic language
programs in critical languages coupled with incentives for
linguistically proficient students to enter Federal service.
The lack of language skills among professionals in the
Federal Government, particularly in critical languages is an
issue of U.S. national security.
It is imperative for the Federal sector to consciously and
systematically invest in a national effort to produce more
qualified internationally skilled graduates from its colleges
and universities.
In my remarks today I would like to focus ever so briefly
on some critical issues and respond to the mandate from this
Subcommittee to offer some solutions.
Each year the National Security Education Program surveys
Federal agencies and offices involved in the conduct of U.S.
national security affairs to identify critical areas in
languages of the world. The needs are across the board for
competent professionals who are language proficient.
A submission from the Department of Commerce is
instructive. It cites, for example, difficulty in finding
qualified individuals with skills in Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew,
Russian, Central Asian languages--Hindi, Tamil, Ukrainian, to
name a few.
It outlines needs for scientists and engineers who have
Asian language skills, skills in economics, statistics, public
policy, business administration, and law, coupled with language
skills.
The Department of State has experienced such difficulties
in addressing some of its personnel needs and much to our
satisfaction, they have turned to NSEP for assistance in
identifying language competent professionals.
To date the Department has hired at least 34 NSEP award
recipients. A number of these individuals are filling positions
in U.S. embassies. Their language study under NSEP auspices has
provided them with the necessary competencies without need for
additional and sometimes time-consuming language training. A
list of these individuals is included in my complete testimony.
In terms of a Federal response, the Federal Government
really has no systematic plan for ensuring that its workforce
possesses the necessary international competencies. Its two
preeminent language-teaching institutions, the Defense Language
Institute and the Foreign Service Institute, focus on
important, but narrow segments of the existing Federal
population.
Furthermore the mission of these schools is for these
students to generally attain basic or functional levels of
language proficiency. These schools fill a critical void
because students from high school and college language programs
cannot meet Federal needs.
While Federal programs need to be maintained if not
strengthened, the longer-term solution to this program must
also include more directed Federal investment in the U.S.
educational system.
As the Association of American Universities has stated, the
raison d'etre of the American research university is to ask
questions and solve problems. America's research universities
are at the forefront of innovation. We rely on the U.S. higher
education community to educate and train our leaders in
business, commerce, science, and technology, and expect them to
train the best and brightest for work in academic, business,
and public sectors.
But in the international skill arena, we are terribly
deficient and woefully under-funded. The role of the higher
education community remains pivotal in solving this problem.
Indeed, together with an increasing emphasis on language
acquisition in the K-through-12 environment, higher education
offers the only feasible solution.
It simply makes more sense to invest in our national
capacity to produce educated Americans whose skill set includes
language proficiency and then to create a path for them to
Federal service. Otherwise, we continue down a path of ad hoc
responses and Band-aid solutions.
What role can the National Security Education Program play
in addressing this growing problem?
NSEP is the only Federal program that makes a direct link
between the Nation's security interests and the development of
critical language skills.
The National Security Education Act of 1991 states that the
Federal Government has an interest in ensuring that the
employees of its agencies with national security
responsibilities are prepared to meet the challenges of this
changing international environment and has an interest in
taking actions to alleviate the program of American students
being inadequately prepared to meet the challenges posed by
increasing global interaction among states.
Each year we fund a small number of outstanding U.S.
students to undertake meaningful language study as part of
their academic programs. But equally important, we are a
pipeline for students to enter Federal service because its
award includes an obligation to seek Federal employment in an
agency or office involved in national security affairs.
You heard in earlier testimony about difficulties in
identifying and retaining talented professionals in the Federal
Government. Let me reassure you, there are many outstanding
students in our colleges and universities who are eager to find
jobs in the public sector.
Our challenge is to create and increase opportunities for
students to learn critical languages and then to establish
paths, not obstacles, for them to facilitate their access to
Federal jobs.
It is this pragmatic function and accountable partnership
that we embrace that has led us to propose a targeted solution
to the Nation's critical shortfall in intermediate and advanced
language expertise.
In concert with the National Foreign Language Center at the
University of Maryland, we have already committed NSEP to a
pilot effort to create national flagship language programs in
critical languages. The purpose is to establish a set of
programs that will produce significant numbers of graduates and
candidates for employment with the Federal Government with
advanced levels of language proficiency in languages critical
to national security.
The NSEP and NFLC have already begun to map out such an
effort through a series of in-depth site visits to
universities. The objective is to make investments in a
relatively small and manageable number of outstanding and
regionally located institutions that will enable them to
produce high-proficiency graduates.
These institutions will demonstrate a commitment and
capacity to achieve this goal. They will draw students from
local, regional and national communities. They will support
distance education, critical languages, and intensive language
programs for a national student audience and program
articulation with local, secondary and heritage education
partners.
The flagship programs will, through NSEP, attract students
motivated by the service requirement to gain employment with
the Federal sector. Most importantly, these programs will have
one single and paramount goal: To produce advanced language
proficient graduates.
Let me close with one final thought. For many of us who
have struggled for years to address this important issue, we
are heartened by the interest demonstrated by you and this
Subcommittee. We are eager to work to identify solutions and we
are confident, given the right structure and funding, that the
U.S. educational system can be successfully challenged to
answer the call.
This concludes my testimony. I will be glad to answer any
questions.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Dr. Slater. We appreciate your
testimony. It was very helpful and interesting.
Dr. Davidson, we appreciate your being here. Dr. Davidson
is President, and Co-founder of the American Councils for
International Education. He is a Professor of Russian and
Second Language Acquisition at Bryn Mawr College.
He has held the rank of full professor since 1983. We are
very fortunate to have him here today. Dr. Davidson has degrees
in Slavic Languages and Literature from Harvard University and
a long list of accomplishments that you would expect from
someone who is so well educated as Dr. Davidson.
Please proceed, Dan Davidson. We welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF DAN E. DAVIDSON,\1\ PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COUNCILS
FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful
for the opportunity to appear before you today and to present
views, experience and also some research results concerning the
state of foreign language learning and instruction in the
United States in the year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson with attachments appears
in the Appendix on page 93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of my work, as you pointed out, has focused on the
study and teaching of Russian. More recently, however, I have
worked as chair and member of the K-16 U.S. Foreign Language
Standards Collaborative, part of the Goals 2000 initiative that
Secretary Riley mentioned. It is a group of presidents and CEOs
of the National Foreign Language Professional Associations.
I am also a member of the Standards Development Committee
for all the foreign languages of the National Board of
Professional Teaching Standards.
I am a practicing teacher. For the past 25 years I have
headed the principal study of broad organization for the study
of the languages and regions of Russia, East Europe, the South
Caucasus and Central Asia. These are programs funded by the
U.S. Government and over 500 participating schools, colleges,
academies, and universities where these languages are taught in
the United States.
First, I want to underscore that the central Federal
responsibility, in my view, is to ensure that with regard to
critical languages that we are able as a Nation to maintain
language readiness or preparedness for the national security,
economic, and educational needs we can reasonably anticipate.
It is obviously too late to be worrying about language
readiness for our military or intelligence and diplomatic
capabilities when we are already deploying peace-keeping troops
in Kosovo or negotiating a pipeline deal in Azerbaijan or
hammering out a trade pact with China.
Readiness begins, as the Chairman himself has pointed out,
with the educational expectations of our youth, and it
continues throughout our lives.
Second, while it may be axiomatic that our national
security needs in this area include law enforcement, diplomacy,
defense, and intelligence, we cannot afford to see these needs
solely as a dimension of the Federal Government and its
agencies.
Matters of national security for which sophisticated
language and cultural skills are needed are cross-cutting with
the private sector as well and obviously include business
interests, NGO activities, and educational enterprises.
Our solutions to the problems we face as a Nation typically
involve all of these sectors, whether the challenge is focused
on trade, public health, the environment, or the like. So, we
must all consider that the solutions that we may find for the
Federal Government may well have major implications outside the
Federal Government as well.
Third, I do want to mention to the Subcommittee and to you,
Mr. Chairman, that there is a very strong track record of
Federal assistance in foreign language when it has occurred. It
can have profound positive, and effective results.
The National Security Education Program is one such
example. It is a relatively small and young program. It has
made a difference in our language readiness.
I would also like to point to the important work of the
Title VI Program and the Fulbright-Hayes 102(b)(6) Program
against small programs referenced by the Secretary of Education
that have had leverage and impact well beyond their relatively
small budgets.
I also want to point out work done over the years in
teacher training by the NEH programs that terminated largely in
1995-96 and also the Title VIII Program for my regions of the
world administered by the State Department.
A lot of the results are summarized in an excellent book
that appeared only a couple of weeks ago, published by the
National Foreign Language Center's Dr. Richard Brecht and
William Rivers, who are here today at this hearing. It is
called ``Language and National Security in the 21st Century.''
It is an excellent volume summarizing the role of the Title VI/
Fulbright-Hayes in supporting national language capacity. It is
a good volume. I recommend it.
There is more to mastering a foreign language than simply
knowing a lot of words and remembering the complex rules for
stringing those words together. No matter how quickly and
skillful a learner can be.
As previous testimony from the FBI, the State and Defense
Departments have underscored, effective communication and
successful negotiations with a foreign partner--whether with a
partner in peacekeeping, a strategic economic partner, a
political adversary, or a non-English speaking contact in a
critical law enforcement action--requires strong comprehension
of the underlying cultural values and belief structures that
are part of the life experience of the foreign partner.
In fact, English language alone is probably sufficient if
all we need to do is buy our products abroad, if we need to
purchase foreign goods and services. But when it comes to
selling a product abroad, you have to understand the psychology
and the belief structure of your client.
If you are selling America abroad and telling America's
story abroad, as our colleagues in the State Department stress,
then you have to understand the value systems of that foreign
public that you are speaking to.
Our Nation's distinguished senior diplomat in Russia,
Ambassador Jim Collins, who is also a good friend, in a recent
conference on the Department of Education's Title VI, commented
that in Moscow he arguably has at his disposal the best
translators and linguists produced by the U.S. Government and
by the Russian government, for that matter.
Yet, if he did not speak Russian at the 3+ level, he would
be largely lost or in deep difficulty in trying to make
political sense of the things that take place in an average day
at our embassy in Moscow. That is how important his personal
knowledge of Russian history, language, and culture has been
for this very senior and respected diplomat.
I think that says a lot about what we need to do here. The
solution is not through technicians, but it is through
educating, as Dr. Slater has said, people, professionally and
early on in their careers in languages.
I want to turn now to the issue of the architecture of the
U.S. foreign language field. What are we doing right now and
where are we succeeding and why aren't we succeeding more? We
have, entering American colleges and universities in September
2000 the largest freshman class in the history of America.
We have a total 14.5+plus million students in 2- and 4-year
public and private universities across the country, a total of
4,096 institutions. Of those 14.5 million people, a grand total
of one million, or fewer than eight percent, will actually
study any foreign language at all in their college careers. Of
those one million students, 50 percent will be studying
Spanish. Of the remaining half million students, a disturbingly
large percentage will spend that time in elementary and low-
level, intermediate courses. Very, very few will go on to the
most advanced levels. Thirteen percent will go beyond the 1+
level. Five percent will move to the 2+ level and a disturbing
one percent will go to the 3+ level.
Now, we in our research have looked at that one percent.
How did they do it? What is the secret of those who do succeed
and what can we possibly do to increase that flow? The system
can produce the three levels. The question is: Why doesn't it?
We have looked at the successful models. They have been called
variously flagship models of excellence. This is not something
that has to do with necessarily the size of an institution or
its name in the field. It has a lot to do with what happens in
the foreign language career.
I would like to point out in summary what we have seen that
works in the American system. When we have articulated programs
of the K-16 model, when we have universities capable of picking
up the students from their high school training and moving them
successfully on to the next step in the sequence of learning,
we have a success rate that is by far disproportionate to the
numbers that go on the K-16 sequence. I am happy to report that
there is more of that planning now going on.
Second, when we have students in the less commonly-taught
languages who don't always have the opportunity to begin these
critical languages in high school or in elementary school,
those students who have learned another language and then go on
to add a critical language almost invariably do better and have
a higher likelihood of succeeding and achieving high level
proficiency in the critical language thanks to that expertise
that they developed in school prior to that.
Third, program students who have access to intensive summer
institutes, we sometimes call them ``greenhouses,'' but those
intensive summer immersion institutes are remarkably successful
at bringing people over a critical threshold in the study of a
language that then positions them ideally to study abroad for a
year in that target language.
When you can study abroad for a year and you have the
language to sit alongside a student in a foreign university,
then you can not only do your language, you will be growing in
your language even as you study your other discipline at the
same time.
We see the results of content-based instruction improving
results of language training and we see students coming out of
those programs better specialists, not only in language, but
also in fields like business, thermodynamics, physics, art
history, whatever their other interests are.
Finally, we see institutions that will find a place in
their senior year curriculum for a capstone experience for
those students who have had the successful career, and have
spent the year abroad. There must be something to do when you
get back to college that is a capstone experience where you can
apply those skills, where for the first time you will be
speaking with heritage speakers of those same languages in an
intellectual experience that integrates that knowledge in
language, in business, in history, in physics, and whatever
else one has done. I think institutions where that happens are
producing those 3+ level speakers.
Mr. Chairman, if I can elaborate on any of these comments
later on, I would be happy to. Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Dr. Davidson. We appreciate
your comments and your statement, which will be in the record
in full. Thank you.
Ms. Abbott, we appreciate your being here. Ms. Abbott is
serving as the K-12 Foreign Language Coordinator for Fairfax
County Public Schools. She supervises 400 foreign language
teachers who are involved in programs ranging from elementary
programs in French, German, Japanese, and Spanish, to secondary
programs including other languages such as Arabic, Chinese,
Korean, and Russian, which are designed for fluent speakers.
She has been given awards and citations for her excellent
performance in these areas. She serves on the Executive Council
Board of the Joint National Committee on Languages and the
Foreign Language Academic Advisory Council to the College
Board.
In 1998, she was awarded a Florence Steiner Award for
leadership in K-12 foreign language education.
Ms. Abbott, thank you for taking time to be with us this
morning. We look forward to hearing your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA G. ABBOTT,\1\ FOREIGN LANGUAGE COORDINATOR,
FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Ms. Abbott. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
inviting me to provide testimony this morning. Every morning
more than 3,000 elementary students in Fairfax County public
schools begin their day saying ``Buenos dias, Bonjour,
Gutentag, or Ohayoo gozaimasu.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Abbott appears in the Appendix on
page 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But their use of the foreign language doesn't stop there.
For half of their school day, all the learning takes place in
the foreign language. The subjects taught are math, science,
and health.
Around mid-day they change teachers and the rest of the
school day the learning takes place in English in the studies
of social studies and English language arts. Foreign language
programs like these are being replicated across the United
States because the time is right and the time is now.
We have entered the age of global communication and
cultural diversity. Now, more than ever, there is a need for
Americans to equip themselves with languages other than English
in order to work, live, and compete economically in this new
world.
In order to prepare our citizens for this new world, we
must begin to build up the capacity among all Americans to be
multilingual and multicultural world citizens. Building this
kind of capacity needs to become a goal of all governmental and
educational institutions across the country.
Building this national capacity is a lengthy process that
must become a fundamental part of the education of every
American child. That is why over 3,000 students in Fairfax
County public schools begin their day learning in another
language because they are the beginning of our capacity
building.
The first students to begin in our Language Immersion
Program in 1989 are now entering college. Their dreams and
aspirations are quite different than they would have been had
they not had the opportunity to learn in two languages.
These students have their sights set on majors in
international business, their summers filled with internships
working in foreign-owned businesses and their vacations
destined for countries where they can speak the language and
function in the culture.
Learning in two languages has a profound impact on one's
view of the world. It liberates individuals from their
insularity and it provides students with more than one way of
looking at issues and even more possibilities for resolving
those issues. Most of all, it produces students who are
confident in their abilities, who look beyond the usual
boundaries in life.
I would like to add that many of the students in our
Foreign Language Immersion Program qualify for entrance in our
magnet school for students gifted in science, the Thomas
Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. Even though
they learned their math and science from Grade 1 on in French,
German, Japanese, or Spanish, they still meet the entrance
requirements for this prestigious magnet school.
Yes, the time is now and the time is right. As the only
industrialized country that routinely graduates students from
high school with knowledge of only one language, English, we
need to act now to set in motion the foreign language programs,
the funding, and the professional development for teachers that
will provide this opportunity for all American children and
will begin the capacity building in languages nationwide.
One of the best ways that the Federal Government can build
the language capacity of our Nation, as suggested at last
week's hearings and as you heard today by members of various
government agencies, is to begin with our children in foreign
language programs that begin early, including programs in Latin
and dual language programs that allow native speakers of a
language to learn English while improving their native language
skills as well.
Building our national capacity in this area also requires
us to look at the type of programs we fund, the availability of
qualified teachers and the professional development of in-
service teachers.
Changing the instructional approach in foreign language
classrooms from the old emphasis on grammar translation to an
emphasis on functional communication is a necessary first step.
How many generations of Americans have to say, ``I took 4
years of French, but I can't say anything'' before we take
action and change our direction?
Programs aligned with the National Foreign Language
Standards focus on developing our students' ability to
communicate in the language and to understand how to interact
with native speakers of the language. But how many of our
programs reflect this focus? Pitifully, very few. Most often it
is at the elementary level where one finds programs that are
truly designed to meet this communicative objective and that
truly engage the students in this learning process.
These elementary school programs have increased due to
Federal support through the Foreign Language Assistance
Program, FLAP. But the few new programs that FLAP supports are
not enough. We need a more concerted and consistent national
approach to the establishment and maintenance of quality
foreign language programs across the country.
Probably no discipline stands in a position to benefit from
technology innovations as much as foreign language instruction.
We should have given up long ago the teacher-directed model of
the foreign language classroom.
Language learning is an individual process, which should be
facilitated by the teacher, but enhanced by current video and
audio technology components so that students can truly progress
at their individual learning rates.
Distance learning and other technological advances help us
address the issues of the less-commonly taught languages such
as Arabic, Russian, and Chinese, which are difficult to
implement particularly in rural areas.
We need to harness the capabilities of the technology age
to help us teach languages effectively to our young people.
With the need to change our instructional focus comes a
critical need for professional development for teachers. Most
teachers are doing what comes naturally, teaching the way they
were taught. We will continue to perpetuate the old way of
instruction unless we radically change the focus of our current
teaching force.
With the recent approval of the foreign language standards
for the National Board for Professional Teachers Standards,
there will be an incentive for master foreign language teachers
to get board certification.
We must develop a plan for ensuring that these teachers
become an important resource for both novice and veteran
teachers alike. It is a new age and we need new ways about
thinking about language instruction.
Finally, few obstacles stand before us as mightily as the
shortage of qualified language teachers nationwide. Although
some disciplines are in a more difficult situation than others,
a July 4, 2000 article in The Washington Post entitled,\1\
``Schools Desperate for Foreign Language Teachers,'' outlined
how particularly critical the situation is within the foreign
language field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The article from The Washington Post appears in the Appendix on
page 166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As someone who is responsible for assessing the teacher
candidates who apply to our school system, I have witnessed
this shortage, particularly over the last several years. Even
in a large suburban school district such as Fairfax County, we
were never fully staffed in Spanish last year. Due to illness,
maternity leave, or transfers, we were in constant search for
teachers of Spanish during the 1999-2000 school year.
This year our new hires included 80 new foreign language
teachers as well as four teachers from Spain through a program
offered by Spain's Ministry of Education.
And we still have vacancies. A crucial part of our
capacity-building effort is to professionalize the teaching
field to attract the best and brightest to enter the education
profession. We are positioned as never before to move forward
in our capacity-building effort to create a citizenry for the
future, a global citizenry in which languages and cultures are
valued, encouraged and rewarded.
As the United States moves forward from the isolation of
the past, so, too, must we work to move our children's young
minds beyond the familiar neighborhood to a wider world of
experience. We must use languages as a means to accomplish
this.
Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Ms. Abbott. That was
very interesting and helpful testimony.
Frances Coleman is a Ph.D. from Mississippi who is a friend
of mine of long standing. We are very lucky that she is up here
in Washington right now as an Albert Einstein distinguished
educator fellowship winner at the Department of Energy.
She has extensive personal experience as a teacher in our
State. She has been cited time and again as a recipient of
awards for excellence in science teaching as well as the use of
technology in the classroom.
She has been a leader in our State in so many areas. It is
kind of hard to believe. She has a Ph.D. from the University of
Mississippi Medical Center in Physiology and Biophysics. She
also has studied and become proficient in French, German,
Computer Science, Mathematics, and in teaching gifted children.
She has won the Mississippi Association of Physics
Outstanding High School Teacher Award, a Presidential Award in
Excellence in Science Teaching, the Tandy Technology Prize. She
is a member of a lot of organizations. She has published a lot
of things. She has presented papers. The list is kind of
staggering here. I am not going to read everything. But you get
the drift of this. She has been chosen by the Mississippi
University of Women for the Teacher Hall of Fame.
We are glad she is here in Washington to try to help us get
a better understanding of some of the practical things that we
can do to assist and support education in the elementary and
secondary levels and the college level as well.
I am delighted to welcome to our hearing one of our
distinguished citizens of the State of Mississippi, Dr. Frances
McLean Coleman.
STATEMENT OF FRANCES McLEAN COLEMAN,\1\ Ph.D., TEACHER/
TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR, ACKERMAN HIGH SCHOOL AND WEIR
ATTENDANCE CENTER, CHOCTAW COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
Ms. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Coleman appears in the Appendix
on page 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my other life, before I became an Einstein Fellow, I
taught in two small, relatively poor rural schools in Choctaw
County, Mississippi. Choctaw County is about 100 miles north of
Jackson, so you know where it is.
I am going to describe how we have been attacking the
problem of teaching foreign languages as well as some other
problems in these schools.
I teach in Ackerman High School and Weir Attendance Center.
Ackerman High School has about 500 students in grades 7-12 and
graduates about 60 students each year. Weir Attendance Center
has about 600 students in grades K-12 and graduates about 30
students each year.
There are also about two elementary schools in the district
for a total of about 1,900 students. The district is
approximately 40 percent minority.
In 1981, our newly-elected County Superintendent of
Education had the idea of using a Liberal Arts graduate and
technology to teach the students at these schools the courses
they would otherwise not be able to take, but that they needed
to take to prepare for college. The courses might be
unavailable either because there was not a teacher to teach the
course because only one or two students wanted the course and a
teacher could not be spared.
For example, in the past Ackerman had occasionally had 1
year for foreign language but Weir had never offered a foreign
language and neither school had ever offered physics. Our
superintendent applied for and received a grant from the
Federal Government for an experimental program.
He offered me the chance to start this program in the 1982
school year at Ackerman High School. As I remember, I taught
Physics, French, German, Basic Programming and Calculus to a
handful of students.
The district decided that the program was a success and the
next year Choctaw County funded the program and expanded it to
include Weir. At that time I taught all the foreign languages
that were offered. Since then we have added a regular teacher
who teaches 1 year of French in Ackerman and one who teaches 1
year of Spanish at Weir. I teach in the years after that first
year.
I teach three periods in Ackerman in the morning and three
periods in Weir in the afternoon. The number of students now
varies between 60 and 100 for the year.
In addition to the subjects with which I started, I teach
Anatomy and Physiology, Marine Science, Environmental Science,
Humanities, Mythology, Creative Writing and various computer
courses. I am certificated in all the subjects that I teach.
Those subjects in which I am not certified, including
Spanish, Russian and Japanese, my two aides and I arrange to
offer to the students through distance learning.
This program is different from other courses in that the
students are scheduled to come to my room whenever they can fit
a class into their schedule. Scheduling is particularly
difficult in a small school because there is often only one
class period when a course is offered.
I might have four or five different courses being studied
in my room at one time. All classes are taught in a variety of
ways, but making full use of technology. The students learn
personal responsibility and independent as well as their course
work.
Distance learning for us has mostly changed from one-way
video and two-way audio, that is, television delivered by
satellite and telephone responses by the students, to a better
distance learning model, the two-way audio, two-way video
network that Mississippi has in place and is coordinated by
Mississippi Educational Television.
Almost every county in the State now has an electronic
classroom in at least one of its high schools. K-12 schools,
community colleges and universities can be connected as
desired. We have found, however, in our district that although
distance learning is better than no course at all, in most
instances a teacher in the classroom with the students, even if
that teacher is split between students in several courses,
works better.
In order to increase the number of students who become
proficient in the language, I would agree with almost
everything I have heard.
First of all, we need to make the students, their parents,
and school administrators in the K-12 system especially see the
importance of foreign language proficiency to students and to
the country.
Next, we need more foreign language teachers. There was an
effort by the Mississippi Foreign Language Teachers Association
to encourage the State Legislature to require 2 years of
language for high school graduation. This failed, largely
because many of the superintendents in the State said it would
be impossible for them to find teachers.
Finally, we need to increase the requirements for foreign
language in both K-12 and post K-12 institutions.
Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. Coleman. I think
one of the interesting things about Dr. Coleman's comments is
that a Federal program grant started the teaching of subjects
in this school district which, but for that Federal grant might
not have been started, or I think we can safely say, wouldn't
have been started, at least when they were started.
This illustrates another point, I think, the Teacher Corps
Program that I asked Secretary Riley about, which has been
discontinued now in terms of Federal funding, is still in place
in different ways.
I know there is a foundation based in Meridian, Mississippi
that has assumed the responsibility of providing some of the
funds for that program. I think it has taken up the slack. The
State has also put more money in foreign language instruction
in a variety of ways.
In terms of an organized plan and strategy for leading the
challenge of recruiting teachers, training people to be
teachers and starting foreign language programs so they are
available throughout the K-12 experience is something that we
have to work on to accomplish.
I think that is the message that I get from this panel of
witnesses and the importance of it is very clear.
Ms. Abbott mentioned getting teachers from other countries
through programs that are available in those countries,
reciprocal opportunities. That is an interesting idea and I
hope we can explore how we can take advantage of that in more
countries other than just Spain and Fairfax County. But that
sounds like it offers promise as well.
Dr. Davidson's comments about our Ambassador to Russia,
Ambassador Collins, brings back the memory of a recent trip to
Moscow where I was with him and saw him in action in several
meetings where his cultural and language proficiency stood him
in very good stead in discussions that we had.
It also reminded me, when you said something about cultural
education, not just technically trained language scholars are
needed for effective influence as diplomats or in business or
the like. If you don't understand what somebody is talking
about in terms of their cultural and national interests, you
might be just as lost as can be.
It reminds me that I did spend a year at the University of
Dublin in Ireland. I thought I spoke that language until I went
during my first week there to an arts festival and on the stage
one of the first people was a storyteller who was telling folk
tales about Ireland. I didn't understand a thing he said.
But the crowd would laugh or they would gasp and they were
reacting to the stories and obviously enjoying these stories
about Ireland. I didn't understand the language and didn't
understand the point or anything at all. But that was the first
week I was there.
I think by the time I finished the entire year I did
understand, not only the language, but also the nuances and the
humor and why things were funny that the other people there
thought were funny, too. So, that is a very important
consideration in all of this, particularly for the Foreign
Service professionals and the Defense Department professionals
who are going to have contact with people from other countries.
Dr. Slater's comments about the goals producing advanced
language graduates in our colleges and universities in the
program that you have made in investment in, selected
universities where we can concentrate the teaching of language
programs at a higher level of proficiency, sort of super
graduate schools, I guess, in these areas.
Let me ask you in that connection when you were talking
about that program, how did that program get started? What is
the source of funding? Does the Federal Government have a
direct role in that program?
Mr. Slater. Well, the program I referred to is actually a
part of our institutional grants we award every year to
universities to undertake innovative programs in language and
international study.
The program I alluded to in my testimony is a pilot effort
we have undertaken where we have carved a small amount of money
out of our program to simply explore.
What I should add to that is we don't really have the
funding to implement at this point, but we felt it is so
important to start to work with universities to identify ways
in which they can be empowered to leverage the resources they
have now to start producing intermediate and advanced language-
competent individuals.
One of the things you have to understand is that
enrollments in these languages on any single campus is
extraordinary low. Dr. Davidson referred to the small number.
When you divide that among thousands of universities across the
United States, we may have five students at one campus taking a
particular language at the intermediate or advanced levels. So,
the university is not capable of mounting a program without
leveraging funding.
What we are looking toward is building the capability to
hopefully start to fund some of these institutions to raise the
level and build them as institutions that we recognize as the
ones in the United States where you go, whether you are in the
university, whether you are in the Federal Government, if you
want to pursue language education at an advanced level. These
are the ones who become the models for providing that. But we
don't yet fund them.
Senator Cochran. You referred to language skills coupled
with disciplinary training. What disciplines are in most demand
and for what languages?
Mr. Slater. Applied sciences and health are two examples of
disciplines that cut across Federal needs. We find, for
example, that the Defense Department indicates that we need
health and environmental professionals who speak other
languages. The new agency that deals with issues of
denuclearization in the Department of Defense has difficulty
finding individuals with a science background who speak Russian
at the intermediate and advanced levels.
So, it really increasingly over the years has cut across
all the disciplines, particularly the applied sciences,
engineering, but also law, health, environmental science, etc.
Those are becoming critical fields.
Senator Cochran. Dr. Davidson, you mentioned the need for
cultural immersion. How, as a practical matter, are we going to
do a better job of that as we are teaching the technical
foreign language capabilities to Federal employees who need to
know a foreign language?
Mr. Davidson. I think we have several resources that we
know will deliver higher levels of sophistication and culture.
Increasingly, Mr. Chairman, we understand that actually
language and cultural knowledge are almost indivisible. I mean
learning one is the other. I think probably the handicap of the
greenhouse is that it tends to emphasize, the stateside
greenhouse tends to emphasize the technology skills of
producing a speaker of a somewhat disembodied kind of language
that isn't so anchored.
You know from your year in Dublin that a lot of those
experiences are grounded in actual things that happened to you
while you were there as you watched people react to what you
said and you learned why something was funny in a particular
context.
So that obviously study abroad is a major value-added for
the language learner. Doing it at a point when you can combine
your study with an area of intellectual or academic or
professional interest is a big value.
For those who can't go abroad, the Internet has come to our
assistance with streaming video, authentic materials we can now
use, live video and authentic sources, archives, conversations
in the classroom process. I think both my colleagues mentioned
that as well. It is a powerful tool. It doesn't substitute
being there, but it does bring authenticity at really even the
earliest levels.
Senator Cochran. Has it been your experience that the
distance learning has the capacity to be improved or has it
been improved in your experience and does it offer a potential
that we may not have yet realized.
Mr. Davidson. My experience is a long one, Mr. Chairman, so
that I recall very well in the 1970's and 1980's when our
technology basically was sort of fancy electronic flashcards
just giving us quick technical responses. We have come a long
ways since the economic flashcards.
The fact that learning nowadays can be modularized, that as
my colleague in Mississippi pointed out, it is possible for
independent study that is facilitated and overseen by a
teacher, but modules that actually are self-paced and geared to
a learner's particular style of learning, the level that they
have reached, and continual assessment element at the end so
that I know before I go on to the next module how well I have
mastered this unit, whether I should return or whether I can go
on.
So, it does wonderfully powerful things in terms of
individualizing learning. The example that Dr. Slater made, we
may have a total of only five learners of Azeri in all of the
United States at this moment. But those five learners, if we
are lucky, are in one or two places. More likely they are in
more than one or two places. They may each have a specific
need. They may need Azeri or they may need that language for
business. So, the modularized approach that distance learning
now makes possible is there.
I think your question, though, is can it really replace
teaching? I think the answer is that we haven't really seen
that happen yet, but it certainly enhance and let teachers say
``yes'' to student requests that before they would have to say
``no, we don't do that. We don't have that''
Now, you can say ``yes'' more of the time.
Senator Cochran. We had some demonstrations here in our
Subcommittee of jurisdiction over education a few years ago. We
had an experimental program, a demonstration program that was
funded with Federal dollars. We had a few schools in
Mississippi able to take advantage of that.
The educational television system in our State, we were one
of the first States that had statewide coverage of a public
television system, so we were ideally suited, as Ms. Coleman
pointed out, to experiment and demonstrate some of these
technologies.
I haven't really checked on the status of that lately, so I
was glad to hear the report from Dr. Coleman's personal
experience.
I remember Japanese courses were being taught at Iuka
School way up in the northeast corner of Mississippi. The
University of Kentucky was the platform where the actual
teaching was done from, to these other places throughout the
country.
One problem that I remember was the expense. It is not easy
to pay for the expense of these new technologies. That may be
where the Federal Government comes in, to try to help figure
out a way to more economically make these resources available
to State and local school organizations that want to use them.
What is your opinion or view of that? Do you have any
personal experience on how we can make this more economical or
more feasible?
Mr. Davidson. The National Security Education Program, as
Dr. Slater mentioned, funds not only scholarships for graduate
students and undergraduates abroad, but also institutional
grants that allow institutions to address just these kind of
problems.
I would say the issue is the development of the modularized
forms of Internet based learning. It's the time of digitizing
and of developing those templates and testing them and so
forth. That is very labor-intensive and very expensive. There
is an obviously role for the Federal Government there.
Once it is out there, then the actual utilization is not so
expensive. So, I think particularly the role in development is
important.
Senator Cochran. Dr. Slater, do you have an opinion on that
or a comment?
Mr. Slater. The daunting part of technology is that it
changes every day. It is very expensive. The issue of language
learning is that it is active; it is not passive. One of the
challenges in technology is to interact through distance
education with the students as opposed to just delivering
language education to students in other locations. That becomes
expensive.
As the technology advances, what is important is that we
continue to monitor ways to deliver.
We have a set of students in the Rocky Mountain region
through a cooperative agreement with Montana State University
and the University of Washington where more than a dozen
university students in areas you would never think would want
to learn Arabic are actually studying Arabic now that it is
being delivered to them interactively by the University of
Washington.
So, it can work. The problem is it is expensive and it is
technologically still very challenging. So, we need to continue
to work on ways to improve it. But this is one of the ways to
get access to more students.
Dr. Davidson points out, and it is very important, we are
never going to replace the teacher. In language education we
can only supplement and improve on what they do and gain access
to more students, but we are never going to replace the teacher
in this area.
Senator Cochran. Is there anything available to other
school districts like Fairfax County or those in Mississippi
that tried and true method of methodology or technology in
teaching of foreign language that the Federal Government as a
facilitator could help make available throughout the country?
Is there a magic bullet out there that we are somehow not
hearing about?
Mr. Davidson. I think there are probably many people in
this room that have opinions on that subject. My colleague, Ms.
Abbott, commented on the standards-based materials that are
coming out. The standards across fields are comparable in the
Goals 2000. We are seeing an increase of very interesting
materials that are standards-based for Grade 4, for Grade 8,
for Grade 12 or for Grade 14 or 16. They are not only
articulated materials, but they make kind of sense in terms of
the outcomes that we are all striving to deliver in the system.
So, the standard-based materials and institutions, and I am
going to mention one for foreign language called LangNet, which
is still inchoate, but it is up there already and it is
available, by the way, free of charge right now, thanks to both
Federal and private foundation support, including support from
the Ford Foundation as well as the Federal Government, that
makes quality-assured resources that have been tried and tested
by teachers themselves and sort of screened and put up on the
Net for voluntary use by teachers anywhere in the country.
So, there are some very encouraging developments. Again,
that LangNet is a structure that we have to continue to polish,
but there is good material that comes from the practitioners
themselves. It is up there for use. So, I think there are some
encouraging trends.
Senator Cochran. That is very interesting.
Ms. Abbott, what, if anything, could you recommend that we
do in terms of Federal policy and programs that would help you
do the job of meeting this challenge of foreign language
learning at the local public school level?
Ms. Abbott. I am not sure I have a magic bullet here
either, but I think in terms of attracting teachers to the
field, we need to look at the salary issue. One of the basic
reasons that young college graduates don't go into teaching is
because of a lower salary start.
Even in Fairfax County with a beginning salary of $31,000,
we lost a couple of teachers last year. They were sharing a
house with young college graduates who were in the tech field.
They have a much higher salary. They don't bring work home at
night and they don't have the stress level during the day that
a teacher does.
So, they start to weigh those kinds of issues. I think that
we need to take a serious look at the culture of the teaching
profession and the salary issues.
Senator Cochran. Are you in the Fairfax County Public
School System using Foreign Language Assistance Program funds?
Ms. Abbott. We got our program off to a start with the
Secretary's Discretion Fund grant that was given to George
Mason University that we just used for some teacher training in
the early years. Then we also benefited from an incentive grant
to keep our program going.
But we like to include it in our baseline budget because
then we can be assured that we always have it. So, it has been
now long enough in our program in our school system that it is
part of our baseline budget.
Senator Cochran. Do you know whether foreign language
instruction is a determining factor in post-secondary education
or career choices?
Ms. Abbott. We have talked to a number of our students
graduating and they all have aspirations of continuing their
language study. They all want to travel to the country, if they
haven't already. They all want to include it as part of their
career goals.
Senator Cochran. We had a panel of witnesses at our first
hearing. We heard how agencies used something called the
``machine translation tools.'' That is a fancy phrase, I guess,
for having a machine translate foreign language writing or
maybe spoken, if it is recorded, too.
I am curious to know from the people who have had
experience in the classroom, are these devises used in schools
or is this a helpful way to help teach foreign language skills,
using machine translation devices?
I am going to ask that of Ms. Abbott and Dr. Coleman. Is
that technology helpful at all?
Ms. Abbott. It is not really helpful to the schools unless
they have a professional to review the translation. That takes
quite a bit of work. We had some elementary schools that tried
to use that kind of translation devise and they came out with
some incredible letters to parents that made no sense at all.
So, we nipped that in the bud.
But you would need a professional to overview that kind of
translation. It is not perfected yet.
Senator Cochran. Have you had any experience with that?
Ms. Coleman. Just a little bit. I would say it is extremely
easy, if you happen to give an assignment that they are
supposed to do something in the other language and they do it
that way, it is very easy to spot.
Senator Cochran. In the use of the distance learning
programs, we were talking, Dr. Coleman, about your experience.
There is not a substitute for the teacher in the classroom.
That is the point.
Are these programs helpful at all? Have you encountered any
televised or interactive distance-learning program that you
thought was particularly helpful or useful?
Ms. Coleman. Well, the programs that we have delivered over
our ETV system are interactive because that is cameras and
television sets, both for the person who is producing the
course and the classroom. So, they are very interactive. You
can immediately speak to the people at both ends. So, they are
good. They are still not quite the same as having the teacher
where the student can touch them and actually be in the room
with them.
By the way, those rooms, which cost originally about
$80,000 each, were started with Federal funds from the Star
schools. The cost has dropped now. I think they may be down as
cheap as $50,000 now.
Senator Cochran. It still sounds expensive, doesn't it?
Ms. Coleman. Yes, it does.
Senator Cochran. Have Federal funds from any source been
particularly helpful to your school districts or any others
that you are familiar with in Mississippi in terms of foreign
language education or training of teachers and the like? Is
there anything that is helpful on the Federal program level at
this point?
Ms. Coleman. I don't know actually of anything. It could be
that some of the programs that are at the universities are
assisted with Federal funds, some of the things that give
teachers a summer experience that everybody was talking about.
They are probably assisted with Federal funds.
As a teacher who teaches both science and math and foreign
languages, I see many more programs for science and math
teachers where the teacher can go for 2, 3, or 4 weeks in the
summer and be paid, than there are for foreign language
teachers to go, and be paid. That would be a place I could see
the Federal Government putting some money.
Senator Cochran. Ms. Abbott, do you agree with that? Is
that a program that you think would be helpful to your teachers
or would help you recruit teachers?
Ms. Abbott. Yes, definitely. I think that teachers would
benefit from that kind of concerted effort toward professional
development. As I mentioned in my testimony, we need to turn
around the way languages are taught in this country,
definitely.
I also fully support the FLAP program and believe that it
has started a lot of good, new foreign language programs. But
we need to have some quality control there and we need to make
sure that those programs are getting off to a good start.
We need to make sure that those school districts can
sustain those programs because the worse thing is to start a
child off in first grade in a language program and then have
the funds cut in fourth grade. Then they are out of the loop.
That frequently happens.
Senator Cochran. I want to ask this question of both of you
as well. How is technology used in your schools, to your
knowledge, to teach languages? Are there any new technologies
that you have encountered that could be helpful, that are being
developed, either Internet-type technologies or other
communication technologies?
Ms. Abbott. I would say that the main thing that we are
looking at right now are online courses, because it is
difficult for school systems to maintain the wide variety of
courses that students need.
Our immersion students, when they arrive in high school, we
need to make sure they still have challenging foreign language
courses available to them.
We have started some dual credit classes with local George
Mason University, but online courses would help us meet this
kind of need. We are currently looking into some of the online
courses that are available and possibly developing our own if
they don't quite meet our needs.
Senator Cochran. Dr. Coleman.
Ms. Coleman. I would agree with that. The modular courses
online sound particularly interesting because you could use
modular courses as developed and make them fit each individual
student. So, if modular courses were being developed, I think
they would be very useful.
Senator Cochran. Well, I think this has been a very helpful
hearing. I appreciate very much the participation of each
witness in this panel. You have added to our understanding of
the issues and the challenges we face in making our programs,
our schools and colleges and universities and our government
agencies more responsive to the need we have for well-trained,
proficient users of language as it relates to our national
security interests.
Thank you all for being here. This concludes our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8304.134