University of North Carolina System May Cut Foreign Languages

Story from IES Language Foundation — Orange County, March 22, 2011:

The ever-present burden of budget cuts is forcing UNC-system schools to follow a national trend of bidding “adieu” to foreign language programs.

A report published by the University of California, Riverside said the number of universities offering undergraduate degree programs in European languages and literatures — Romance, Germanic and Slavic — declined steeply from 1971 to 2006.

Steven Brint, one of the authors of the report, said some of the trends captured in the report have continued since 2006. In times of budget cuts, schools look to cut low-enrollment programs, he said.

But according to a report produced by the Modern Language Association, nationwide enrollments in Spanish, French, Italian and German all increased from 1998 to 2009.

To combat budget cuts, administrators are looking to cut programs that don’t produce as many majors, which often include language programs.

Students and faculty are concerned administrators are focusing more on the decline in language majors than student interest that is represented by increasing class enrollment.

‘Doesn’t make any sense’

Effective this semester, N.C. Agricultural and Technical State University terminated its French and Spanish majors, the only two majors in the department of foreign languages. Students can still take classes, but no new students can declare a major in either language.

Jose Bravo-de-Rueda, chairman of N.C. AT’s department of foreign languages, said he was surprised the department received cuts.

“On the one hand we’re pushing to be global. On the other hand we’re cutting languages,” he said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”

David Aldridge, associate dean for research and graduate studies for N.C. AT’s College of Arts and Sciences, said the school has proposed eliminating the whole foreign language department.

Aldridge, who served as interim dean of the college until February, said the department is at risk because it no longer offers majors.

Bravo-de-Rueda said he wouldn’t be surprised if the department was eliminated.

“Without majors, what do you need a department for?”

Examining enrollment

N.C. State University announced last week its plans to review low-productivity programs — including French and German — for elimination or consolidation.

Ruth Gross, head of NCSU’s foreign language and literatures department, said low enrollment is not an issue for those programs.

But neither the French program nor the German studies program meet UNC General Administration’s standard of producing at least 20 majors every two years.

The French program only produced 13 graduates in 2009 and 2010 combined. Its German program graduated seven students.

UNC-CH does not plan to cut any foreign language majors, said Bill Andrews, senior associate vice dean for the fine arts and humanities at the University.

He said low productivity is not a problem for foreign language programs now that the Slavic and German programs are merged.

The University combined its undergraduate degrees in Slavic and German studies into a single degree last month. Students still choose from the concentrations that were available in the individual majors.

A nationwide trend

N.C. AT is not the only university to cut foreign language degree programs — other universities, including Louisiana State University, have also done so.

LSU eliminated its German and Latin majors and cut its entire Russian, Japanese, Portuguese and Swahili programs.

Chairman of LSU’s department of foreign languages and literatures John Pizer said the German program was not producing the minimum seven graduates a year, so it was eliminated. He said the university is making cuts to the already weak and understaffed programs.

“It’s almost like Darwinian,” Pizer said. “The operative mood on the campus is just dread that there will be more cuts coming,” he said.

LSU junior Caleb Van Pelt, a German major, said he probably won’t be able to finish his degree on time because course offerings in the languages will be severely reduced.

He said students are upset and confused because the foreign language department was bearing the brunt of the budget cuts.

A more positive outlook

UC Berkeley will not cut foreign language majors — instead, it will increase funding for foreign languages, said Rick Kern, director of the Berkeley Language Center, in an email.

Kern named 13 languages that will benefit from the funding, which will come from increased student fees and out-of-state tuition costs.

The University of California system is expected to increase tuition by 8 percent for in- and out-of-state students for 2011-12. It increased tuition by 32 percent last year.

The UNC system maintains a 6.5 percent cap on tuition increases for most circumstances.

“Offering language courses, even if enrollments are low, is absolutely essential to a world-class university,” Kern said.

Foreign Language Courses in Wisconsin Subject to Budget Cuts

According to the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the recent budget cuts by Governor Walker may endanger foreign language programs in the public school system. Here is the full story from http://www.weac.org, March 16, 2011:

MILWAUKEE—With Wisconsin residents bracing for an unprecedented gutting of public education under Gov. Scott Walker’s extreme budget proposal, many Milwaukee residents fear foreign language courses and specialty schools could be wiped out. Walker’s proposed budget bill cuts $834 million from K-12 education and slashes hundreds of millions from early childhood education programs.

Parents, teachers and education support professionals, nurses, students, firefighters, police, and other working families have been attending community information sessions being held throughout the Milwaukee area on the so-called budget repair bill. Another town hall meeting is scheduled for tonight at Milwaukee French Immersion School, located at 2360 N. 52nd St., in Milwaukee. The citywide public school, which provides most of its academic instruction in French in grades one through five, could be closed if the governor’s budget bill passes.

“These cuts to courses and programs are just devastating to the community and to the kids who depend on these services,” said Janet Fendos, whose children attended the Milwaukee French Immersion School. “We’re worried about sustaining foreign language programs. Look at what this budget is doing to our kids and their futures.”

Foreign language courses are not considered part of the core curriculum, which means they would likely be first on the chopping block. Those kinds of cuts are at odds with the goal of keeping America competitive in the 21st century. Even President Obama is pressing more Americans to learn a foreign language. In Milwaukee, parents and teachers are distraught that the Milwaukee French Immersion Schools—and similar schools across Wisconsin—have already had to make dramatic program cuts to art, music, physical education and afterschool programs.

“The Walker budget cuts undermine the quality of our children’s education while offering breaks to big businesses and the rich,” said Mary Bell, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council. “Not only will nearly $1 billion in school cuts lead to teacher layoffs and increased class sizes, this budget eliminates funding for programs like science education and Advanced Placement that help our kids succeed. Deep cuts also jeopardize arts and sports.”

In the last month, Wisconsin residents have been spurred to action by the governor’s extreme actions and his attacks on working families. They are attending rallies, marches and other protests across the state that come on the heels of a massive turnout at the Capitol in Madison that drew more than 100,000 people.

“Educators know these are tough economic times, and we have made sacrifices. But this budget is extreme and does not reflect Wisconsin’s values,” added Bell. “Legislators should make choices that help our kids, not hurt them.”

Duke’s Language Faculty Expresses Concern

Article by Lauren Carroll for The Duke Chronicle, March 16, 2011:

University foreign language departments are becoming even more pertinent as Duke expands abroad, but continued spending cuts in Durham are causing stress among language faculty.

Lee Baker, Trinity College dean of academic affairs and associate vice provost for undergraduate education, led a forum titled “Curriculum 2000 in 2011” Tuesday as part of the Department of Romance Studies’ annual Language and Pedagogy Discussion Series. Although the forum was intended to stimulate discussion about curriculum, the conversation turned to challenges posed by budget constraints and nationwide cuts in foreign language programs.

“The [national] trends are to go against the language requirements and reduce faculty in language departments,” Joan Clifford, assistant director of the Spanish Language Program, said in an interview Tuesday. “This is an ongoing concern for us.”

Even though other universities are often quick to cut foreign language departments, Baker said language learning will remain an integral part of Duke’s liberal arts curriculum, especially as the University continues its commitment to globalization.

He added that more undergraduates are studying foreign languages than ever before, noting that “students know, ‘I need a language to do something better.’”

Although faculty members are pleased that student interest in foreign language classes remains steady, they questioned whether budgetary restrictions will prevent departments from fully accommodating students’ needs, especially with class size regulations.

Currently, language courses taught by non-regular rank faculty members must have at least eight students enrolled or the class is canceled. Baker said funding a class with less than eight students is an irresponsible use of resources.

Deborah Reisinger, assistant director of the French Language Program, said in an interview Tuesday that these restrictions have the potential to put professors in a position where they cannot pay their rent. If a class is unexpectedly canceled because of low enrollment, the University can change the professor’s contract, she explained.

“The caps of enrollment in courses affect what you can and can’t do,” she said. “That’s your livelihood. You were expecting a certain salary, and the University reserves the right to change your salary.”

Carolyn Lee, director of the Chinese Language Program, praised Duke’s study abroad programs for keeping students involved with their languages but added that the financial constraints make it difficult to maintain high-quality programs both in Durham and abroad.

“Division of labor has become a very challenging situation,” Lee said. “You’re compromising human resources when it comes to the budget…. How are you going to work within the constraints of the program and still get the meat of the instruction?”

Baker called the language departments’ challenges a “tug-of-war” of resources, noting the difficulties of balancing quality of professors with quantity. He reassured faculty members, however, that language instruction will remain an important part of the Trinity College curriculum.

“If you want to really have an impact, language acquisition and learning is critical,” Baker said. “Duke has made a commitment to internationalization and globalization, and that’s not going away any time soon.”

U Tennessee Saves Foreign Language Programs

Story from commericalappeal.com, March 14, 2011:

University of Tennessee administrators have come up with an alternative to eliminating Russian and Italian degree programs and will continue to offer the majors while also cutting costs.

The two programs had been identified for elimination before the university decided to roll all foreign languages into one degree and instead offer concentrations in any of eight languages that are offered. The change is in response to a $56 million budget cut for the Knoxville campus.

College of Arts and Sciences associate dean Richard Hinde told the Knoxville News Sentinel that the more obscure languages will now be less vulnerable to tight budgets.

The Tennessee Higher Education Commission requires a report on the number of graduates in each degree program. Russian and Italian are on the commission’s lineup of low-producing programs.

“We are delighted that (Russian and Italian) will continue to be viable opportunities for majors and for language study for our students,” said Erec Koch, head of the foreign language department that helped develop the change. “They still have tremendous value in international politics and in international business. The Italian economy is still one of the larger ones in the world, and the Russian economy is becoming more important, and certainly Russia continues to be an important international presence.”

Provost Susan Martin in December suggested trying to find a way to handle a high demand for low-level Spanish courses and to continue offering the other languages, which also include Chinese, Portuguese and Japanese.

The college and modern foreign languages department together came up with the idea of creating one major with multiple offerings and the provost recently approved it.

Eliminating the programs would have taken at least a year and a half and the school would have continued to teach courses in those languages, Martin said. By not offering full degrees, however, they would not have to teach as many high-level courses, which are more costly. Each language has two full-time professors.

The CIA Wants Foreign Language Learners

Story by Jeremy Hsu for livescience.com, March 9, 2011:

Many Americans don’t learn a second or a third language from birth, let alone a language that the CIA or U.S. Foreign Service might want. The situation has forced U.S. government agencies to learn how to cultivate the most talented second-language speakers from among college students with little to no other-language expertise.
But experts who help select and train raw talent also see an opportunity in the mass of recruits who start out speaking only English. That’s because the U.S. represents a living laboratory for observing how adult brains change over time as they struggle to adapt to the new grammar and vocabulary of a second language.
“In U.S. education, we don’t develop early bilinguals,” said Catherine Doughty, a language expert at the University of Maryland. “We’re dealing with monolinguals or people who have only studied foreign language, so that they don’t really have any proficiency.”
Doughty spoke as part of a panel on Feb. 19 during the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference in Washington, D.C. She and other speakers described the typical U.S. second-language program as being a series of disjointed classes where students often repeated what they had learned before.
“Imagine math (programs) where the middle school says, ‘We don’t have any idea about what you studied,’ so you learn it again. It’s the same with high school,” said Robert O. Slater, director of the U.S. National Security Education Program.
That situation drove Slater and the government to develop a flagship program for finding the most promising college students and putting them through intensive language learning. Yet researchers have just begun to figure out how to predict the most promising language students, and how to measure their progress.
The CIA has aimed to boost its ranks of foreign language speakers, with a special focus on recruiting speakers of Arabic, Chinese, Dari, Korean, Pashtu, Persian, Russian and Urdu.

One nation under English
American schools currently don’t graduate enough people fluent in French and Spanish and other Romance languages, let alone languages such as Chinese, Korean and Russian, which pose greater challenges for native English speakers, Slater said.
“The flagship model is confounded by the reality that very few first years show up with any appreciable language skills,” Slater explained. “Most language learning at the undergrad level is not proficiency- based.”
Ten years ago, the flagship program recruited post-college graduates with moderate training and put them through intensive language learning in the United States, before sending them abroad for a year. But the flagship program was re-engineered five years ago to focus instead on motivated undergraduates.
Current estimates suggest that not even 20 percent of Americans speak at least two languages. Among that population, the government must find its multilingual recruits from a much smaller pool of candidates who are willing and able to serve.
Finding the best
Government agencies aren’t alone in trying to recruit multilingual speakers; U.S. corporations covet such skills for doing business in the era of globalization. Some companies have asked language research centers, such as the one headed by Doughty, for help in training the most promising employees.
“We try to train up language athletes by selecting those with talent,” Doughty said.

Doughty and her colleagues used tests to train up cognitive processes related to language learning, such as the ability to hold information in the brain while using it for learning. They then confirmed that the training’s effects left a lasting impression in the brains of candidates even after several months.
Eventually the researchers hope to create a test that can identify those candidates with the greatest language-learning potential. They have begun comparing cognitive factors among promising candidates with those of people who are already fluent multilingual speakers, and are currently tracking the success rates of the first batch of candidates.
“(The battery of aptitude tests) seeks to predict those who can succeed despite everything stacked against them,” Doughty said.
Changes in the brain
At least one panel member saw a silver lining to the late language-learning challenge. The United States represents an ideal lab for seeing how the brain changes in response to language learning, because so many Americans start out speaking just one language, said Lee Osterhout, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, during an interview following the panel session. “They’re like a blank slate,” Osterhout told LiveScience.
Osterhout’s lab has used electrodes placed on the scalp to measure the electrical activity created by the signals of brain cells. That allows the researchers to see differences in the brain patterns among language learners and fluent speakers – and to find some surprising results.

Repeated studies of French language students showed that their brains responded differently to real French words compared with fake words after just two weeks of classes, even if the students themselves could not tell such words apart.
“After 32 weeks of instruction, (the brain patterns) are almost indistinguishable from native French speakers even though you would not confuse them with native French speakers,” Osterhout said during the panel session.
Another surprise came from studies of Spanish-speaking immigrants, because neither age nor language proficiency seemed to predict how quickly the immigrants picked up English. Instead, the fastest learners showed both the greatest motivation to learn and a willingness to use English at every opportunity despite being bad at it (at first). Learning to speak the lingo
Osterhout hopes to tease out the importance of motivation in language learning in future research. But he also wants to get a better sense of what separates the proficient language speakers from the truly fluent ones.
“From knowing nothing to a little bit, (there are) huge changes in the brain,” Osterhout pointed out.”(From) knowing a little to knowing a lot, (it is) much more subtle.”

As for U.S. government agencies and corporations, grooming the most talented language speakers may prove the quickest solution for now. But Slater suggested that the government should look into a real “paradigm shift” that would “build pipelines” for developing second language talents earlier and funneling them to higher levels of education.
“We want to see flagship with thousands of students so it becomes more meaningful as a statistical analysis,” Slater said. “We want to see research on language applied in the real-world classroom environment.”

Foreign Service Lacks Language Skills Among Other Things

Today’s Washington Post article by Joe Davidson underscores the need for better language training among foreign service candidates to enhance U.S. diplomacy. It is based upon the findings of a much larger report, Forging a Twenty-First Century Diplomatic Service for the United States Through Professional Education and Training. Here is the link to that report: http://www.academyofdiplomacy.org/publications/Forging%20a%2021st%20Century%20Diplomatic%20Service%20-%20Full%20Content.pdf

The article by Joe Davidson follows (March 9, 2011):

At a time when some North African and Middle East states are in chaos and America is posting large numbers of civilians in war zones, the United States is sending Foreign Service officers abroad poorly equipped to deal with the critical situations they face.

That’s the takeaway of a report by the American Academy of Diplomacy and the Stimson Center, which was discussed at a congressional hearing Tuesday.

“There is little question that under-investment in diplomacy over the last decade or so has left our Foreign Service overstretched and under prepared,” the report says.

Yet, despite the gravity of the situation, the hearing had a distinct lack of urgency. The poor attendance by senators was indicative of scant attention too often provided issues involving federal employees – except, of course, when they can be convenient whipping boys.

Former ambassador Ronald E. Neumann, president of the academy, supplied a shot of energy when he told the hearing that “our government lacks sufficient trained Arabic-language-speaking officers to fully understand and assess what is happening – to go beyond the glib, English-speaking reporters in Tahrir Square to take the full measure of what Islamists, younger people, the demonstrators and the jobless are saying off camera.”

“We lack these capacities because for years the Department of State has lacked the resources to train enough officers in language skills,” he said.

Although the hearing focused on Foreign Service officers, training is a universal issue in the federal workplace and often among the first items to be cut. For State Department workers – and the nation – it’s also a matter of national security.

In a forward to the report, Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush, said the study “emphasizes that on-the-job training alone is no longer a sufficient method, if it ever was, to develop a US diplomatic service that is second to none.”

The Senate federal workforce subcommittee hearing was chaired by Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii). He was alone on the dais, except for a brief appearance by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). The top Republican on the panel, Sen. Ronald H. Johnson (Wis.), was a no-show because, he said, he attended a Budget Committee hearing.

Coburn arrived a half-hour late, told witnesses to expect even less money for staffing and training, and was gone in about eight minutes. He asked no questions.

It was a far cry from the days when Akaka and former senator George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) operated as a team. Voinovich, who was the ranking Republican on the panel when he retired in January, was deeply involved in the subcommittee. He and Akaka often worked closely on legislation affecting federal employees.

Akaka doesn’t have that kind of a partner now.

Coburn’s single focus was saving money. He dismissed State’s plans for a 25 percent Foreign Service increase by 2014, saying, “It’s not going to be ramped up because we don’t have the money to do it.”

About overseas locality pay for Foreign Service officers, Coburn said: “It’s going to go away. People ought to be expecting that.”

If budget-cutters slash already meager training budgets, the result will be less effective government, said Max Stier, president of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. (The group has a content-sharing relationship with The Washington Post.)

“It’s amazing that in the same government, we have two vastly different models for investing in talent,” Stier said in a telephone interview.

The military makes enormous investments in training, he said, but the civilian side of the government does very little. “Clearly the military has the right answer.”

Even if plans to boost State Department staffing are fulfilled, the academy says, the surge “will not be enough” unless accompanied by better training. “If America intends to be known for the quality and effectiveness of its diplomacy, we must sustain traditional skills and develop more broadly new capabilities demanded in an increasingly complex international environment.”

The report makes a series of recommendations, including a year of advanced study for Foreign Service officers before they are promoted to the senior ranks.

“Professional education and training are essential to raise the overall level of performance of our Foreign Service,” the report says.

The Government Accountability Office also released a report on State Department training at the hearing. The GAO report says that State “has taken many steps” to increase training but that “the department’s strategic approach to workforce training could be improved in several key areas.”

For example, State offers guidance for employees on training opportunities and career paths, the GAO says, but “the guidance does not provide complete and accurate information.”

The department also “could not sufficiently demonstrate consistent and appropriate support for training,” according to the GAO.

The GAO report does not look at language training, the agency said, because its September 2009 study called for a comprehensive State plan to address “persistent foreign language shortfalls.”

State has told the GAO that it has taken steps to improve language training.

Languages Shouldn’t Be So Foreign

That’s right — we need more foreign language programs in the schools — something I have been writing about for some time now. Kelsey Decker, who is an intern for the Savana Morning News, offers her views on the matter below (March 7, 2011):

It’s time for U.S. schools to step up their foreign language programs. Undeniably, it is beneficial to be at least familiar with a language other than English.

A study from this year demonstrated bilingualism helps children “learn to prioritize information, provide(s) a defense against some effects of Alzheimer’s or just provide(s) a great workout for the brain,” according to an article from the Los Angeles Times. It also helps speakers learn to choose their words better and express thoughts more accurately because they can move between the languages.

Georgia requires high school students to have just two years of a foreign language to graduate. Likewise, many students in U.S. schools don’t receive enough foreign language education to truly have a lasting impact (though two years is better than nothing at all).

It would be ludicrous to generalize all U.S. school system requirements, but a foreign language seems to typically be mandatory for two years — at least that’s what it was at the high schools I attended in Japan and Texas.

Schools should be doing more, though. I began learning German in middle school as part of the curriculum where I lived in Ohio. It was arguably more beneficial to start then because the way it worked, what would have been crammed into one year in high school was spread out from sixth to eighth grade.

Learning the basics over three years meant it wasn’t just about memorization — I really understood not only the language but the culture, too. We had the time to listen to music and look at the lyrics, celebrate holidays like St. Nicholas Day and Karneval and build cities to learn what various things were called.

There are also schools that offer immersion programs for children, often beginning in elementary school, where the entire curriculum is taught in a language other than English. These programs are great, and there should be more of them because the language tends to stick with the child better than if he or she began learning it later.

However, it would also help the country 10 to 15 years from now when these children are older, if the offered programs were more diverse. Spanish, French and German are a good standard. But Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, Hindi and Farsi are all languages that will become increasingly important in the immediate future.

The combined population of China, India and Iran alone is 2.5 billion, which is more than one third of the world’s population. If more programs that taught languages like these were implemented in schools, children would be better prepared to interact with the rest of the world instead of the ethnocentric view many people possess today.

If programs like this could be instituted, or even if foreign languages were just required classes for more than a few years, we would be linguistically up to par with countries around the world which require students to learn English for five or more years.

No, being born into a country where English is the offical language is not a good excuse for not learning a foreign language; European students often pick up a second foreign language in addition to English.

Speaking a foreign language is something that really doesn’t have any downsides. It makes you more prepared for life, whether you are looking for a job or simply maintaining mental health. We owe it to future generations to make sure they understand the importance of it.

Kelsey Decker is an editorial intern at the Savannah Morning News and a senior at Georgia Southern University.

Armenian Foreign Language Debate

The following is an interesting article about whether Armenia will allow languages other than Armenian to be taught in its school system. It seems the debate is a result of the Cold War legacy.

Article by Anna Kartashyan for Araratmagazine, March 7, 2011:

In April 2010, the Armenian government proposed a bill of amendments to the Armenian laws “On Language” and “On General Education.” Existing Armenian legislation didn’t allow teaching and education in general educational institutions on the territory of the Republic of Armenia in any language other than Armenian. The final goal of the proposed amendments is the opening of foreign-language secondary schools, which can be established either with private capital or on the basis of interstate or inter-agency agreements and by the decision of the Armenian government.
According to the initiators of the project — the government representatives — this will help to modernize the Armenian educational system in order to meet the highest international educational standards as well as to strengthen ties between Armenia and the Armenian diaspora. Nevertheless, this project initiated active debates in Armenian society.
During the Soviet era, alongside Armenian schools, there were schools where all classes were conducted in the Russian language. In those schools, only such classes as Armenian language and literature were taught in Armenian. The number of Armenian and Russian schools was approximately the same in Yerevan and other large cities. However, in rural areas, most of the schools were Armenian. Within universities, most departments offered instruction in both Armenian and Russian.
In the Soviet years, most of the Armenian intelligentsia received a Russian education, which was considered to be of higher quality. A significant segment of world literature was not translated into the Armenian language, but was available in Russian, which people engaged in intellectual work knew fairly well.
On the tide of public enthusiasm about the liberation and restoration of the national state, the 1990’s were marked by rejection of Russian language and heritage, as well as its usage in public spheres. From 1990 on, all first-grade children in Armenia started their education in the Armenian language and, in 1993, Russian-language schools were completely banned.
Some 20 years later, the initiative of the Government of the Republic of Armenia about opening, or, as some call it — reopening — of foreign-language schools, has again generated considerable public discussion and debate.
The opponents of these ideas organized a public initiative called “We Are Against the Reopening of Foreign-Language Schools” and protested in front of the Armenian Parliament. They are very active in social networks, having a group of the same name on Facebook with more than 3,000 followers, as well as in blogs. Generally, the movement has received widespread public support.
The main arguments of the opponents are the following: first, Armenians must receive their basic education only in the Armenian language; and second, the Armenian secondary educational system itself has too many issues and gaps – namely, the newly imposed 12-year-long public education system was implemented without appropriate curricular adjustments; the educational program itself, as well as the textbooks, are outdated; and state financing is weak, which leads to low salaries in the schools and difficulties with recruitment of professional teaching staff. In the opponents’ opinion, under these circumstances, the Ministry of Education and Science should concentrate its efforts on resolving these problems instead of designing projects and developing new educational programs for foreign-language schools. However, the most important concern is over statements of high-ranking government officials that foreign-language schools will provide a somewhat higher quality of education leading to a situation where education in the Armenian language will be regarded as one of lower quality, and Armenian will become a “secondary” language for people with a foreign education. All this will lead to the loss of Armenia identity in the future, insist the opponents.
Initially, the draft amendments to the law “On General Education” didn’t foresee any limitation on the number of foreign-language schools. In subsequent versions, undoubtedly due to the pressure of public opinion, the government fixed the number of those schools at eleven.
According to the last draft amendments presented for the approval of the Armenian Parliament, “two of the schools will be established as non-state educational institutions and will operate in the cities of Dilijan and Jermuk, at least on the basis of the 6th grade (starting from the 7th grade); nine schools will be established on the basis of interstate and/or inter-agency agreements and will realize third-level international public educational programs.” (“Third-level education” is an official international term for higher education, mostly used in Europe.) The legislation will also limit the number of schools teaching the same foreign language to four.
On December 22, 2010, during an extraordinary session, the Armenian Parliament accepted the above-mentioned draft changes to the bills “On Language” and “On General Education” by a vote of 69 for and 1 against. However, in order to become law, the bills still had to be signed by the President. This parliament decision brought about a new wave of protests, this time in front of the residence of the President of Armenia, with protestors chanting slogans such as “Do not sign.” The opponents asserted that they would not stop their protests against the reopening even if the law comes into force — they are ready to dispute the constitutionality of the amendments as well as their compliance with international conventions signed by the Republic of Armenia.
“Dilijan International School of Armenia” Project
Meanwhile, before any decision on adjustment of the legislation was taken, the challenging project called “Dilijan International School” was launched in April 2010. Plans call for the school to be built in the city of Dilijan, and according to the initiators, “it is going to be the first top-level international boarding school in Armenia and CIS to provide a unique harmonious education for children between ages 13-18. It is planned to merge two excellences: the excellence of the world’s best educational system and that of its location.”
The school is a private philanthropic project involving no state funding, scheduled to open in September 2013. By 2020 the school plans to enroll a total of 600 children, about 200 of whom will be citizens of Armenia. The initiators also expect enrollment of students from the Armenian diaspora, as well as foreign students. According to the project’s website, “It is also planned that 60% of enrollment will be through scholarships.” The language of instruction at the school will be English and, upon completion, students will be issued an International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma. The majority of the school’s professors will be recruited from abroad, particularly from leading European countries.
According to the Project Initiators, “The school’s students from the Republic of Armenia will study native language and native literature under a program confirmed by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Armenia for the country’s general education schools, which will allow them to successfully enroll in Armenian universities.”
The “Dilijan International School of Armenia” project is being implemented by a multinational and experienced team, with an internationally prominent Board of Trustees, including Tigran Sargsyan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia (President of the Board), Noubar Afeyan, a professor at MIT Sloan School of Business and CEO and Managing Partner of Flagship Ventures, Vartan Gregorian, president of Carnegie Corporation of New York, Armen Sarkissian, former Prime Minister of Armenia and Founding President of Eurasia House International in London, Ruben Vardanian, Troika Dialog Group’s Board Chairman and CEO and one of the prominent financiers in Russia, and others (full list).
The Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Armenia Armen Ashotyan expects the “Dilijan International School” project to be an immensely important investment in Armenia’s educational sector. “For the first time in the history of Armenian statehood, around $100 million are planned to be invested in the educational system. I hope that this initiative will encourage other businessmen and solvent people to invest significant funds in the field of education,” stresses Ashotyan.
Recently, the final legislative step in favor of the reopening of foreign language schools in Armenia was taken. On January 19, 2011 the President of Armenia signed the bills, thus giving them the force of law.

Praise for UC Berkeley’s Foreign Language Expansion

Recently, UC Berkeley committed at least half a million dollars in funding to expand its foreign language departments, at a time when most other universities slashed theirs. Hopefully, other universities will learn from UCB’s example.

The following comments about Berkeley’s decision are by Rick Kern in The Daily Californian, March 5, 2011:

The UC Berkeley administration’s recent allocation of more than half a million dollars to expand numerous foreign language courses is a bright moment, and stands in stark defiance of the defeatism that has crippled many universities in these times of shrinking budgets. Hats off to the members of our administration for their visionary academic leadership!

Ever since the current financial crisis began, universities across the country have faced critical strategic decisions. A number of them have made the unfortunate choice of reducing funding for foreign language teaching, sometimes dismantling whole degree programs – CSU Fullerton, the State University of New York at Albany, Louisiana State University, the University of Nevada, Reno and Winona State University in Minnesota are just some of the institutions where these causalities have occured. And the U.S. is not alone: Radical changes in funding schemes in the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe have led to cutbacks in languages and the humanities in general.

Ironically, these cuts are coming at a time when foreign language enrollments are higher than ever. A recent report by the Modern Language Association found that foreign language course enrollments increased by 6.6 percent between fall of 2006 and fall of 2009 and reached a new high in fall of 2009, with some languages showing dramatic increases (Arabic, for example, was up 46.3 percent). The MLA enrollment figures will undoubtedly drop the next time the survey is done in 2012, but it won’t be because students are any less interested in languages.

UC Berkeley is an internationally-minded campus. Some 60 modern and ancient languages are taught here, and Berkeley students can select from the more than 200 study abroad programs offered each year. Maintaining international expertise cannot possibly be achieved without offering instruction in a wide variety of languages and cultures. It is crucial to remember that with dwindling resources in high schools, our students have fewer and fewer language options to choose from before coming to this campus. Moreover, heritage language learners often do not have any opportunity to formally study their family’s language until they get to college. It’s therefore essential that we maintain as broad a range of language offerings as possible.

This breadth of offerings could be threatened if our administrators took a bean-counting attitude and funded courses strictly on the basis of demand. Clearly, we need to meet the demand in high-growth languages like Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and so on, but not at the expense of lesser-demand languages like Bulgarian, Catalan or Finnish, which are no less vital to our overall language ecology. The question that will continue to face the administration is how many languages can be supported with relatively low enrollments.

In the case of less commonly taught languages, we may need to think about demand on a systemwide, not campus, level. To date, UC Berkeley and UCLA have most often provided distance learning classes in languages not taught on other campuses. And this, once again, puts a special responsibility on Berkeley to continue offering as wide an array of languages as possible. We are back to the question of what makes a university “world class.” There may be relatively few students enrolled in introductory Telugu, but this is certainly not a language to be dropped – it is the language of some 80 million speakers and is ranked 13th in the Ethnologue list of most-spoken languages. It is apparently only taught at three American universities, and it is therefore a real mark of distinction for Berkeley to offer it.

We are lucky to have administrators who understand that funding language teaching is not a zero-sum game and that you can’t simply offer where demand is high and eliminate where demand is low. Who knows what world event will suddenly make a currently low-demand language a high-demand one? Most of all, what unique lens on the world is lost for our students when a language and culture is no longer taught?

We are also lucky to have some of the finest language faculty and graduate student instructors to be found anywhere. They are energetic, creative and absolutely dedicated to their students’ learning. The fact that Berkeley’s language courses are so popular is largely due to their talent and devotion.

We at the Berkeley Language Center are very grateful for the administration’s ongoing strong support and we look forward to continuing to work with language instructors and students, providing them with resources to enhance their language teaching and learning experience.

All of us who love languages have much to celebrate.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s Remarks on Foreign Language Study

Duncan’s speech of December 8, 2010 is taken from http://www.ed.gov:

It is an honor to be here at the University of Maryland which has worked closely with the Department of Education for more than 20 years to advance the teaching of languages such as Hebrew, Farsi, Chinese, and Russian.

As President Obama said on Monday: “Our generation’s Sputnik moment is now.” The Soviet satellite was a wake-up call that launched a wave of innovation and reform in American schools, particularly in math, science and language instruction. Today’s call to action is an economic one. We need to build a strong foundation for growth and prosperity.

We have to educate our way to a better economy, just as our competitors are doing.

This week, we found out that the brutal truth that we’re being out-educated. On the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, the United States scored as average in reading and science – and below average in math.

We’re behind global leaders such as Finland, South Korea, and Canada. The most surprising news is that Shanghai outscored every other nation. We see this as a challenge to get better.

And one place we obviously need to get better is in teaching languages. The United States is a long way from being the multi-lingual society that so many of our economic competitors are.

My message to you today is that K-12 schools and higher education institutions must be part of the solution to our national language gap.

The President and I want every child to have a world-class education – and today more than ever a world-class education requires students to be able to speak and read languages in addition to English.

The Department of Education plays an important role in supporting second language instruction starting in the earliest grades and to ensure that students are engaged in language all the way through high school.

We have an important responsibility to provide opportunities for those who want to master other languages and prepare them to support America’s economic and strategic interests as diplomats, foreign policy analysts, and leaders in the military.

This is a high-stakes issue. For too long, Americans have relied on other countries to speak our language. But we won’t be able to do that in the increasingly complex and interconnected world.

To prosper economically and to improve relations with other countries, Americans need to read, speak and understand other languages.

It’s absolutely essential for the citizens of the United States to become fluent in other languages—and schools, colleges and universities must include producing bilingual students as a central part of their mission.

Nelson Mandela has said, “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his own language, that goes to his heart.”

No one understands that better than CIA Director Leon Panetta. As a public servant in Congress, at the White House, and now at the CIA, Leon has been a consistent voice urging Americans to become fluent in other languages.

At the CIA, he has reinvigorated the agency’s commitment to ensuring their employees know and use their language skills to ensure our national security.

He has set a five-year goal to double the number of CIA analysts who have a proficiency in a language other than English.

He is working to transform the agency’s language training. He has created a powerful incentive for existing CIA employees to maintain their proficiency in languages other than English.

Leon, thank you for all of your leadership, and thank you for convening this meeting today.

When I look at the challenges you face as the CIA director, it’s obvious that schools need to do a better job supporting you and other leaders on our national security team.

This commitment goes beyond the European languages traditionally taught in high schools and colleges.

It extends to languages that are essential for our economic and strategic interests – languages such as Arabic and Mandarin Chinese, Urdu and Farsi, Pashto and Dari.

As Mr. Panetta has been pointing out for years, the United States may be the only nation in the world where it is possible to complete high school and college without any foreign language study – let alone with the mastery of another language.

Just 18 percent of Americans report speaking a language other than English. That’s far short of Europe, where 53 percent of citizens speak more than one language.

And some researchers predict that China will soon have the world’s largest English-speaking population.

Our education system is one of the reasons Americans aren’t learning other languages.

Foreign language instruction in the United States is spotty–and unfortunately on the decline.

In 2008, one-quarter of elementary schools offered some form of language instruction – down from one-third 11 years earlier.

Just 10 states require foreign language study for high school graduation–and low-income and minority students in particular lag behind their peers in other countries in their knowledge of languages, as well as geography and other cultures.

Low-income students and those who live in rural areas are a lot less likely to attend a school with language instruction. We have to level the playing field for them and offer better opportunities.

I think everyone can point to bright spots in our K-12 system. During my tenure as superintendent in Chicago, the district made a significant investment in Chinese language instruction.

Over the past decade, the Chicago Public Schools has expanded its Chinese language program to include 43 schools and serve 12,000 students. Many of the children involved are Hispanic. They will grow up trilingual with a new world of opportunity ahead of them.

I am proud to say that Chicago has the largest enrollment in Chinese language courses of any district in the country. But I’m the first to admit that I wish the bar was much higher than that.

Today, even if public schools wished to provide second language instruction, the dearth of qualified instructors often prevents school leaders from hiring teachers.

In the 2007-08 school year, three-fourths of the states reported shortages in second language teachers. I believe that where we have areas of critical need, we should pay those teachers – be they foreign language, math or science teachers – more money. Not everyone agrees with me, but I want to stop just talking about the problem and do something about it.

Teacher preparation programs at postsecondary institutions are simply not meeting the demand for new instructors.

In 2007-08, only 136 bachelor’s degrees, 188 master’s degrees, and 14 doctorates were awarded in foreign language teacher education in the United States.

And in 2002, colleges in the United States awarded just six bachelor degrees in Arabic language and literature. Six years later, that number increased to 57. It’s an increase, to be sure, but clearly we’re still far short of what’s needed.

Right now, too many colleges and universities are starting to scale back language programs or eliminate them altogether.

And even those where the language programs remain intact, the priority is often put in the wrong place.

Ninety-five percent of college students enrolled in a language course to study a European language, but fewer than 1 percent of graduate students are studying a language that the Department of Defense considers critical for national security.

It’s clear to all of us that schools, colleges and universities need to invest more and invest smarter in language instruction.

But how do we get from where we are to where we need to be?

The North Star of everything we’re doing at the Department of Education is President Obama’s goal that, by the end of the decade, the United States will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

Working with Congress, the Obama administration has made a great start in expanding college access this year with the reform of the federal student loan program, which freed up $40 billion for Pell Grant scholarships for low-income undergraduates.

That is the biggest increase in student aid since the G.I. bill. And it came at a critical time. We have seen a 38 percent increase in the number of Pell Grants awarded over the past two years. We did that simply by stopping subsidies to banks and instead investing in our nation’s college students.

K-12 schools have a critical role to play as well by ensuring that high school graduates are truly prepared to succeed in college.

Over the past two years, state and local leaders have responded by raising the bar for students.

Forty states and the District of Columbia have voluntarily adopted a set of common standards that truly measure whether a student is ready for success in college or a career when the graduate from high school.

This is a game-changer. Historically, states have dumbed down standards to make politicians look good.

These standards focus on reading and mathematics because they include the foundational skills and knowledge that students need to excel in other parts of the curriculum.

But today’s students also need a well-rounded curriculum that provides the opportunity to learn a second language, as well as history, civics, and the arts.

These subjects are essential ingredients to a world-class education. Education leaders need to be perpetually vigilant that their schools do not narrow the curriculum and offer students the language instruction that will prepare them for success.

One of my top priorities for next year is to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I want to underscore that our proposal goes much further than the existing law in supporting a well-rounded curriculum.

It will allow states to incorporate assessments of subjects beyond English language arts and math in accountability systems.

The blueprint to reform ESEA would create a competitive pool of $265 million to strengthen the teaching of languages, the arts, civics and government, and other subjects. This pool represents a $43 million increase in total funds available for this work – a significant new investment.

Existing programs for all of these subjects have worthy goals. But they have resulted in fragmented funding at the federal, state, and local level.

Under the ESEA proposal, high-need districts, and states and nonprofits in partnership with high-need districts, would be eligible to apply for the grants.

At the same time, we would increase access and funding for college-level, dual credit, and other accelerated courses in high-need schools to support not only a well-rounded, but a rigorous curriculum. Exposure to college-level classes is an extraordinary opportunity for high school students. We want to invest $100 million in this effort.

I recognize that the plan to include funding for foreign language education into a competitive program with other subjects may make some of you in this room nervous, even if it means you can potentially compete for significantly more funding than in the past.

But I urge language educators to participate in this process and demonstrate the impact of their programs on student outcomes. Multiple, small pots of funding perpetuate the status quo, but they don’t lead to the transformative change we need.

One promising development in the research about language instruction is that programs that are proven to be successful continue to grow and thrive.

With a strong research base that’s emerging around such programs, our investment in these and other language projects could potentially easily exceed the amount currently appropriated for programs.

I hope you will accept this proposal as a challenge to show the outcomes of second language programs and an opportunity to assemble grant applicants that will demonstrate the necessity to expand and improve foreign language instruction in schools.

But our investment must go beyond K-12 and continue in higher education.

Since the Sputnik launch in 1957, the federal government has focused the development of second language instruction through resource centers and fellowships to support the study of languages.

Over time, these programs have shifted as economic and strategic interests have changed, and today they are supporting thousands of students as they earn degrees and have experiences in foreign languages that will prepare them for careers in public service and the private sector.

Through Title VI of the Higher Education Act, the Department of Education supports colleges and universities that are teaching strategic languages.

The funding goes to just 3 percent of the nation’s higher education institutions that offer language instruction.

But those institutions account for half of all undergraduate enrollment and more than three-quarters of graduate enrollment in rare languages.

In addition, the National Resource Centers under Title VI support teaching and fellowships for the study of 110 languages every year. The 48 colleges and universities with National Resource Centers award an average of 2,000 PhDs and 6,000 graduate or master’s degrees in languages every year.

These graduates represent a high proportion of the employees in our national security agencies and our military. The U.S. Army, for example, sends its officers seeking master’s degrees in languages to institutions supported by the resource centers.

In particular, these resource centers have been strengthening ties with partner institutions with substantial Muslim populations around the world.

The department will support and help build on innovative education efforts like the University of Hawaii’s Muslim Societies in Asia and the Pacific program.

And four-year grants have supported advanced intensive language study in Indonesian, through Ohio University; Turkish through Princeton University; Arabic in Egypt and Syria through the University of Texas at Austin; and Kiswahili in Tanzania through Michigan State University.

The resource centers also do significant outreach to K-12 educators by posting curriculum materials and offering workshops for teachers.

The Department also funds faculty, doctoral students and educators at the K-12 level in their study of other languages and cultures through the Fulbright Hays program.

The program supports doctoral students conducting research and teachers as they develop curriculum and instructional resources.

The program also gives doctoral students, faculty and future teachers the opportunity to travel abroad and use their language skills in critical languages such as Arabic, Mandarin, and Vietnamese – to name just a few.

While these programs are making significant contributions to the expansion of language instruction in K-12 schools and colleges, it’s clear that they aren’t doing enough.

The path to expanding and improving language instruction faces many significant challenges.

Perhaps the biggest are the budget constraints in K-12 schools and higher education. At every level of education, schools are facing a New Normal in which they will need to be more productive and efficient.

There are productive ways and unproductive ways for schools to meet the very real challenge of doing more with less.

The right way is to cut waste and to identify ways to accelerate student achievement without raising costs.

The wrong way is to cut programs like foreign languages that are essential to providing our students with the well-rounded education that they need to excel in the interconnected, knowledge-based economy.

Our country needs to create a future in which all Americans understand that by speaking more than one language, they are enabling our country to compete successfully and work collaboratively with partners across the globe.

So this is our challenge: To expand and improve language instruction at a time when financial resources are tight and the international economic competition is greater than ever.

We need to embrace this challenge with all of our collective will and courage – the stakes are too high for the future of our children and our country to ignore it.

Let’s embrace the fourth ‘R’ – reality – that Director Panetta spoke so passionately about today.