Intervention Strategies in Foreign Language Planning

Abstract

The American foreign language system, far from being resistant to change, is in a constant state of flux. One of the geniuses of the American system is that decision making is almost totally dispersed and experimentation and innovation are constantly taking place. Mechanisms for making these changes cumulative and their effect widespread are relatively weak. Moreover, these changes only occasionally affect the overall architecture of the system, and basic dissatisfaction with the results of that system remain. There are, however, a number of attempts to intervene in the system to make basic changes. These interventions have taken a variety of forms, directed by actors including state governments, faculty review committees at colleges and universities, the federal government, and private foundations. This article also discusses the most common targets of intervention by various federal and private funding projects. All of the project-specific interventions share a set of problems that limit their effectiveness. The principal problems characteristic of project-style interventions are reviewed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. See Richard D. Lambert , The National Foreign Language System, NFLC Occasional Papers (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1989).

2. See Myriam Met , “Foreign Language Policy in U.S. Secondary Schools: Who Decides?” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

3. For an older summary of private funding, see American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages , Recent Trends in Financial Support for Foreign Languages (Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1985).

4. Jamie B. Draper , Analysis of State Initiatives in Foreign Language Education, National Foreign Language Center Working Paper (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1993).

5. Presidential Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies, Strength through Wisdom: A Critique of U.S. Capability (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1975).

6. See Myriam Met , “Second Language Learning in Magnet School Contexts,” in Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, ed. William Grabe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 13:71-85.

7. Draper , Analysis of State Initiatives.

8. For a full analysis of this initiative, see Jamie B. Draper , Foreign Language Assistance Act, Summary Report, National Foreign Language Center Working Paper (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1992).

9. Ibid., p. 6.

10.

See also Richard D. Lambert , Foreign Language Planning in the United States, NFLC Occasional Papers (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1992).

11.

11. Draper , Federal Expenditures, p. 5.

12.

12. For a history of the development and implementation of this legislation, see Richard D. Lambert , The History and Future of HEA Title VI, NFLC Occasional Papers (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1989).

13.

13. Draper, Federal Expenditures, p. 5.

14.

14. It seems likely that when the new National Security Act is in full operation, it, too, will provide both programmatic and student-based support in the less commonly taught languages.

15.

15. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Recent Trends in Financial Support.

16.

16. Sarah Jane Moore with A. Ronald Walton and Richard D. Lambert , Introducing Chinese into High Schools: The Dodge Initiative (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1992), p. 7. The quotation from the 1984 letter is from a letter from Scott McVay to the Board of Trustees, 24 May 1984.

17.

17. Moore with Walton and Lambert , Introducing Chinese into High Schools, p. 6.