Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 58
3
Title VI and Fulbright-Hays
Implementation
T
he Title VI and Fulbright-Hays (Title VI/FH) programs at the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) are among many federal programs
that support the study of foreign languages and cultures. Some of
these programs are in-house training programs that prepare federal em-
ployees to meet job-related requirements, while others, like the Title VI/FH
ones, are more general educational programs designed to create a broad
pool of expertise. This chapter begins with an overview of the federal
programs supporting language, area, and international studies based on
the committee’s review of publicly available descriptive information about
the programs to illustrate how the Title VI/FH programs fit into the federal
government’s broader efforts in this area. It then moves to discussion of
how the programs are implemented at ED, including historical funding
trends, and how they operate in the university context.
TITLE VI/FH PROGRAMS IN RELATION TO
OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Federally funded language and area studies programs can be divided
into two categories, reflecting whether their primary role is to address more
immediate demands for job-related language, area, and international skills
or longer term, more general needs1 (see Box 3-1; see also Appendix F for
1 The federal government also meets some of its language training needs through the use
of private contractors; language training at some agencies is simply contracted out to com-
panies, such as Berlitz. In addition, some agencies maintain pools of translators who work
OCR for page 59
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION
BOX 3-1
Two Types of Federal Language
and International Education Programs
General Education Programs
• Title VI, Department of Education
• Fulbright-Hays, Department of Education
• Foreign Language Assistance Program, Department of Education
• International programs under the Fund for Improvement of Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education
• National Security Education Program (NSEP), Department of Defense
• Fulbright Program, Department of State
• Title VIII and Gilman Scholarships, Department of State
• Louis Stokes and Pat Roberts Scholarships, various intelligence agencies
Federal Training Programs
• Foreign Service Institute, Department of State
• Defense Language Institute, Department of Defense
• Special Operations Forces Language Office, Department of Defense
• National Cryptologic School, National Security Agency
• Intelligence Language Institute, Central Intelligence Agency
a brief description of each program and information on its purpose, eligibil-
ity, funding level, and number of participants.)
In the first category are training programs designed to meet more im-
mediate job-related needs that are available exclusively for federal person-
nel—people employed in the Foreign Service, military, intelligence, law
enforcement, and so forth. Training is provided by government institutes,
such as the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) and Defense Language Institute
(DLI) (as well as contractors), to address immediate language needs of the
federal agencies. The level of proficiency is determined by the operational
requirements of the job or task and the domain in which the language is
to be used.
on a contract basis, such as at the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Language Services.
In response to a congressional mandate, the Federal Bureau of Investigation established the
National Virtual Translation Center in 2003 to coordinate and expand the pool of contract
translators with advanced language proficiency. Supported by several intelligence and defense
agencies, the center develops and maintains a shared database with up-to-date information on
available translators, while simultaneously informing translators about a variety of full-time
and part-time work opportunities (National Virtual Translation Center, 2007).
OCR for page 60
0 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
In the second category are scholarship, recruitment, and exchange
programs that can be accessed by a wide range of students, academics,
administrators, and institutions. This group of federal programs, including
the Title VI/FH programs, develops a broad pool of bachelor’s, master’s,
and doctoral graduates with language abilities or knowledge of world re-
gions and international issues (or both), helping to meet long-term needs.
Although there are some similarities between the Title VI/FH programs
and the other federal programs in this category, there are also several key
differences:
• Title VI/FH programs at ED have no foreign policy component. Al-
though the Fulbright programs at the U.S. Department of State are of
benefit to the nation’s academics and society, their primary purpose is fos-
tering mutual understanding among people of different nations. Fulbright
programs at the State Department help build connections between opinion
makers and academics in the United States and other nations, for the pur-
pose of improving the image of the United States abroad.
• Title VI/FH programs at ED are not recruitment programs. Al-
though the legislation that created the programs at ED stresses the impor-
tance of language and area studies knowledge for the purpose of national
security, most of the component programs are not primarily aimed at
creating a direct pipeline into the foreign affairs, intelligence, and military
bureaucracies.2 That is the major purpose of other programs in the group,
such as the National Security Education Program, the Pat Roberts and
Pickering Fellowships, and the Stokes Scholarships. Those programs seek
to identify talented individuals with critical skills and pay for part of their
education, with the possibility of permanent employment in the intelligence
and national security communities. They also require federal service, unlike
the Title VI/FH programs.
• Title VI/FH programs at ED do not focus solely on “critical”
languages. Critical languages are identified by the national security com-
munity as those in which need for language abilities is greatest, because
they are spoken in nations considered critical to U.S. national security. The
National Security Education Program focuses on these critical languages.
The federal government institutes and other resources specific to govern-
ment personnel focus on languages demanded by their agency at the time
of their training. In contrast, Title VI/FH was created to support the study
of any “modern” foreign language deemed to be underrepresented in the
2 One exception is the Institute for International Public Policy Program (IIPP) under ED Title
VI/FH, which is focused on preparing minority students for a career in international affairs.
This program, which has some similarities with the scholarship programs at the State Depart-
ment, is discussed in Chapter 11.
OCR for page 61
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION
United States, with a focus on less commonly taught languages. Less com-
monly taught languages are languages other than English, German, French,
and Spanish.
• Other ED programs supporting language and area studies share
similar purposes with Title VI/FH programs, but the relationship is
complementary. ED’s Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) is
specifically aimed at improving foreign language instruction at the K-12
level, by funding innovative state and district-level programs that can be
replicated in other states. The Title VI programs provide resources primarily
to institutions of higher education, with some expected to provide outreach
to the K-12 system to help develop expertise. Although teachers are eligible
for some of the FH programs, it is to study overseas in order to improve
their capacity to teach foreign languages and international and area stud-
ies. The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)
includes several components. One component funds three international
programs3 similar to those funded by the Fulbright Group Projects Abroad
(GPA) Program. However, the FIPSE programs grew out of international
cooperation agreements with Mexico, Canada, Brazil, and the European
Union, and the Office of Postsecondary Education appears to distinguish
projects geographically between FIPSE and Fulbright GPA. As part of
its grants competition, however, FIPSE does fund some higher education
international education programs that appear similar to those funded by
Title VI.
The greatest overlap in terms of activities exists between ED Title VI/
FH and two other programs: the Fulbright Program at the State Depart-
ment, which shares its beginnings with the Fulbright-Hays Program at ED,
and the National Security Education Program at the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD). While there is some overlap in funded activities, there are
also key differences in the purpose and emphases of the programs.
Fulbright-Hays at the Departments of Education and State
Both the Fulbright program at the State Department and the Fulbright
program at the ED were created by the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961, for the purpose of “increasing mutual understand-
ing between the people of the U.S. and the people of other countries” (U.S.
Department of State, 2003). Although the programs have some activities
in common, the two Fulbright programs have different purposes. The
3 These are the U.S.-Brazil Higher Education Consortia Program; European Union-United
States of America Cooperation Program in Higher Education and Vocational Education and
Training; and the Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education.
OCR for page 62
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
programs at the State Department are focused abroad in order to make
connections and increase understanding among U.S. and foreign students,
academics, and opinion makers. The programs at ED have the goal of
improving U.S. domestic education in foreign languages and area studies.
Although the State Department’s Fulbright programs have the residual ef-
fect of increasing area and language knowledge, they are designed primarily
to serve a foreign policy goal—to counter the sometimes negative image of
the United States in foreign universities and among opinion makers. In that
sense, there is no overlap in terms of the purposes of both programs.
Despite their different missions, both programs support U.S. citizens in
their study abroad, in somewhat similar ways. For example:
• Both fund graduate-level research abroad (ED’s Training Grants
for Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad [DDRA] and the State Depart-
ment’s Fulbright-Hays Student Program).
• Both fund faculty travel and research abroad (ED’s Fulbright-
Hays Faculty Research Abroad [FRA] Fellowship Program and the State
Department’s Fulbright Scholar Program).
• Both fund travel for K-12 educators abroad (ED’s Fulbright-Hays
Seminars Abroad [SA] and the State Department’s Fulbright Teacher and
Administrator Exchange Program).
• With the Fulbright-Hays SA/Bilateral Projects, ED works in tandem
with the State Department to provide funding for U.S. citizens to take part
in binational projects.
However, the different missions of the two programs are reflected in
the quite different topics that are investigated during these study abroad
activities. Many participants in the Fulbright program at the State Depart-
ment are not traveling abroad specifically to improve language and area
studies but to lecture and to do research, primarily on social and political
issues. The K-12 programs are also different. Unlike the State Department
Fulbright programs, the ED Fulbright-Hays programs do not invite foreign
teachers to the United States.
Title VI and the National Security Education Program
The National Security Education Program (NSEP) at DoD was created
by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (Title VIII
of the Intelligence Authorization Act). The primary impetus was post-
Desert Storm analyses and congressional hearings. The National Security
Education Act mandated that the secretary of defense create a program to
award scholarships and fellowships to undergraduate and graduate students
to study languages and regions critical to U.S. national security, including
OCR for page 63
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION
the opportunity to study abroad in those regions. It also mandated that
DoD provide support to U.S. institutions to develop programs in and about
countries and languages critical to U.S. national security. The aim was to
create a direct link between identifying the federal government’s current and
future language needs, supporting individuals studying those languages, and
then recruiting those same individuals for careers in national security or to
meet other language needs (National Security Education Program, n.d.).
The program surveys federal agencies for their broadly defined area
and language needs and then allocates portable scholarship funds to U.S.
undergraduate and graduate students. NSEP includes a service requirement
that mandates a good faith effort by scholarship recipients to gain employ-
ment in a national security-related position in the federal government. The
terms of the service agreement have been modified by Congress on three
separate occasions, most recently in 2006. The current service provision
requires NSEP award recipients to first seek employment in one of four
federal organizations (Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State,
and the intelligence community) and, if no position is available, in any fed-
eral agency in a position related to national security. In a given year, there
are about 350 recipients in the pipeline to fulfill their obligation to work
in a federal agency. The largest number of recipients finds positions in the
Departments of State and Defense, and the intelligence community.
NSEP receives direction from the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness and administrative support from
the National Defense University. The program currently has three major
component parts: (1) undergraduate scholarships, (2) graduate fellow-
ships, and (3) grants to institutions. Since 2003, NSEP has reoriented its
institutional grants to the National Flagship Language Program (NFLP).
NFLP programs are at major U.S. universities and are designed to develop
and implement curriculum to graduate students with Interagency Language
Roundable (ILR) level 3 proficiency in “critical” languages (Arabic, Central
Asian Chinese, Farsi, Hindi, Urdu, Korean, and Russian) to level 3 profi-
ciency on the ILR scale.
NSEP is different from the ED Title VI/FH programs in a few significant
ways. First, it is focused on current language needs in the area of national
security, the critical foreign languages spoken in nations that are important
allies or actual or potential adversaries of the United States. Second, there
is a government service requirement for NSEP individual grantees. Third,
fellows typically spend extended periods of time studying overseas.
However, according to a Congressional Research Service report (Kuenzi
and Riddle, 2005a) there is some potential overlap between the activities
of NSEP and ED Title VI/FH programs. It is in NSEP’s grants to institu-
tions of higher education under the National Flagship Language Program,
which may overlap with the Title VI grants to National and Language
OCR for page 64
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Resource Centers. Another Congressional Research Service report (Kuenzi
and Riddle, 2005b) also raises the issue of an overlap and discusses the pos-
sibility of saving administrative costs by consolidating the two programs,
focusing Title VI at ED more on critical languages or moving the NSEP to
ED or the Central Intelligence Agency.4 Congress discussed the possibility
of moving the NSEP to ED but rejected it in order to retain the connection
with defense-related interests. Figure 3-1 illustrates the general overlap
between Title VI/FH programs at ED, the Fulbright program at the State
Department, and NSEP at DoD, as well as some of the areas in which each
program is distinct.
Unique Components of Title VI Programs
There are also several components of the Title VI programs that fund
activities unique to the array of federal programs; in some cases, the re-
sources and materials produced by these programs serve as resources to the
other federal programs. They include
• Funding U.S. institutions of higher education to provide education
and training in international business (Centers for International Business
Education and Research [CIBER], Business and International Education
[BIE]).
• Supporting international studies programs (as opposed to students)
at the undergraduate level (Undergraduate International Studies and For-
eign Language [UISFL]).
• Developing instructional and assessment materials related to for-
eign language teaching (Language Resource Centers [LRC]).
• Supporting overseas research centers that promote postgraduate
research (American Overseas Research Centers).
• Developing materials for foreign language instruction (Interna-
tional Research and Studies [IRS]).
• Conducting surveys and evaluations of foreign language instruction
(IRS).
• Using technology to collect and archive foreign language instruc-
tional materials (Technological Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign
Information Access [TICFIA]).
4 The president’s proposed National Security Language Initiative would move the pilot K-16
initiatives funded under NSEP into an expanded program at ED.
OCR for page 65
NSEP at DoD
Title VI/ FH at ED
Purpose: Create pool
Purpose: Support domestic
of language and area
teaching of foreign languages
experts to meet national
and area studies
security needs
• Grants to
institutions
• Outreach to U.S. • Scholarships for
for instruction domestic and
business and K-12
foreign study, with
• Internships for
service
undergraduates,
• Curriculum requirement
minority students
development
• Undergraduate
study abroad
• Graduate study
• Professional and research
development abroad
• Research
• Faculty research
abroad
• K-12 study abroad
Fulbright at the State Department
• Faculty lecture abroad
Purpose: Increase mutual
• Foreign academics to U.S.
• Exchange programs understanding between
• Foreign outreach people of U.S. and other
nations
FIGURE 3-1 Overlap in activities of three federal foreign language and area studies programs.
NOTE: The size of the circles or the area of overlap should not be interpreted to indicate an exact level of overlap.
3-1
circles redrawn and type repositioned and re-wrapped
Landscape view
OCR for page 66
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
During 2006, international education began to reemerge as a priority
in ED. Early in the year, the secretaries of education and state convened a
meeting of university leaders to discuss the Bush administration’s proposed
National Security Language Initiative, designed to increase the number of
Americans learning critical foreign languages, with an emphasis on the
K-12 system (see Chapter 13). The American Competitiveness Initiative
was also launched, which included SMART (Science and Mathematics
Access to Retain Talent) grants awarded by ED for undergraduates and
graduates studying critical foreign languages5 or science, mathematics, or
technology.
In September 2006, the secretary of education’s Commission on Higher
Education released its final report, calling for increased federal invest-
ment in higher education to support international education, including
study abroad and foreign language training (U.S. Department of Education,
2006a). In October of that year, ED released new grants to school districts
for language instruction, including many in the critical foreign languages
targeted by the National Security Language Initiative. And in a November
speech welcoming participants to the annual International Education Week
conference, Secretary Spellings said that globalization highlighted “the im-
portance of foreign languages in communicating and forming partnerships
with citizens from other cultures and countries” (Spellings, 2006). At the
same time, the committee was unable to identify meaningful reference to
foreign language study or international education in ED’s current strate-
gic plan.
The ED has several offices with a role in international and foreign
language issues: the Office of International Affairs in the Office of the
Secretary; the Office of English Language Acquisition, which reports to the
deputy secretary of education and houses the Foreign Language Assistance
Program; and the Office of Postsecondary Education, which houses the
International Education Programs Service and the Fund for the Improve-
ment of Postsecondary Education. According to the Office of Management
and Budget, ED at one point had an International Activities Coordinating
Group, which was formed to improve the coordination of international
programs and activities throughout ED (U.S. Office of Management and
Budget, 2004). According to ED staff, the group met periodically for about
a year between 2002 and 2003 but is no longer active.
5 Although, as discussed in Chapter 1, it included a broader list of critical languages.
OCR for page 67
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION
International Education Programs Service
The Title VI/FH programs are administered by the International Educa-
tion Programs Service (IEPS) in the Office of Postsecondary Education. The
director of the office is currently a career civil servant who reports to the
deputy assistant secretary for education, who in turn reports to the assistant
secretary for postsecondary education. At one point in the past, under the
Carter administration, the office was headed by a political appointee who
reported to an assistant secretary for international education.6 The current
organizational position of the programs may reflect the relatively low pri-
ority that foreign languages, area, and international issues have been given
in the recent past.
There appear to be few formal mechanisms for coordination either
across programs in the department or across the full range of federal gov-
ernment programs. However, various IEPS staff represent the department
on interagency coordinating groups, including a group at the State Depart-
ment related to the Fulbright-Hays programs and the ILR (Ruther, 2006).
The ILR is a loosely knit network of language specialists from across the
federal government, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. It or-
ganizes monthly plenary meetings with presentations and meetings of three
standing committees on language testing, language training, and translation
and interpretation (Interagency Language Roundtable, 2006a).
The IEPS office implements each of the 14 programs as a separate
competition, although universities applying for both the National Resource
Centers (NRC) and the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellow-
ship Programs do so with a single application. For some of the smaller pro-
grams, a single project officer oversees all grants made for that program. For
the larger programs, multiple project officers are involved. Project officers
appear to operate with significant autonomy, creating both opportunities
for creativity (see, for example, Chapter 10) and the risk of stagnation. As
mentioned in Chapter 1, the IEPS staff manage funds from three appropria-
tions: one for the Institute of International Public Policy, a second for the
remaining Title VI programs, and a third for the Fulbright-Hays programs.
Allocation of resources across the Title VI or Fulbright-Hays programs is
an administrative decision made by the department; in general, the previous
year’s amount appears to determine subsequent year funding.
6 President Carter also created a high-level Commission on Foreign Language and Inter-
national Studies to raise the visibility of international education, assess national needs, and
recommend funding and resources to meet those needs.
OCR for page 68
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
35,000,000
30,000,000
NRC
25,000,000
Allocation Amount
FLAS
CIBE
20,000,000 IRS
LRC
UISFL
15,000,000
BIE
TICFIA
10,000,000
AORC
5,000,000
0
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Fiscal Year
FIGURE 3-2 Allocation history for the Title VI programs, 1980-2006 (adjusted to
2006 dollar amounts using the CPI-U).
SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education. IIPP is not included
since it receives a separate appropriation.
3-2 New file
Funding Allocations
3/5/07
Since 1980, the oldest year for which the committee was able to obtain
these data,7 most programs have received more or less the same proportion
of the total Title VI or FH appropriation. Although ED is generally given
discretion to allocate funds among the component programs, allocations in
any given year are guided by the proportional allocations in previous years.8
Congress has also provided direction on how increases in funding should
be used (see Chapter 1). The NRC and FLAS Programs have consistently
received the largest share of total Title VI funding, followed by the CIBER
7 ED was not able to provide information on the allocation of funds across programs any
earlier than 1980.
8 As reported by IEPS Program staff at June 19, 2006 meeting, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page 72
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
6,000,000
DDRA
GPA
SA
5,000,000 FRA
4,000,000
Allocation Amount
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fiscal Year
FIGURE 3-4 Allocation history for the Fulbright-Hays programs, 1997-2006 (ad-
justed to 2006 dollar values using the CPI-U).
SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education.
3-4 new
received 3/5/07
have also experienced fluctuations in their average grant award, the average
award for those programs has generally been around $100,000 per year
higher than NRC average awards. Over the past three years, the average
grant award for the NRCs, CIBERs, and LRCs have all decreased, even
without accounting for inflation (see Table 3-2). It appears that this is due
in part to the increase in the number of grants.
Like Title VI, Fulbright-Hays received a funding increase in the early
2000s, although the total amount for these programs remains very small
in comparison to Title VI. Most of the increased funding was allocated to
the DDRA Program, which funds research by individual graduate students,
and GPA (see Figure 3-4).
The proliferation of programs has also increased management chal-
lenges, while Title VI/FH staffing levels have either decreased or remained
stable. At the same time, staff are now required to perform both financial
OCR for page 73
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION
and project monitoring functions, tasks that were performed by two differ-
ent people in the past. Staff operate separate competitions for each of the
14 programs, with different rating criteria and priorities for each.
Application Process
A separate request for applications (RFA) is published in the Federal
Register and on the ED website, along with the form, the criteria that will
be used to evaluate and rank the applications and priorities that will ap-
ply to that competition. Most competitions are held every 3-4 years (see
Table 1-1). Awards under the CIBER, NRC, and LRC Programs were
recently extended from 3 to 4 years, both to decrease staff burden and to
enable more stability for the funded centers.
ED uses application rating criteria and three types of priorities to in-
fluence grant applications and direct funds toward perceived federal needs
(see Appendix C). An applicant must propose activities responsive to an
absolute priority to be considered for funding. Applicants who respond to
competitive priorities may receive extra points in the review process, affect-
ing the likelihood of success in the grant competition. Finally, applicants
who respond to an invitational priority—a priority that signals IEPS interest
in a topic—may receive additional funding for doing so, but they do not
receive any competitive preference over other applicants.
During site visits and other meetings with grantees, staff indicated
that priorities influence their applications significantly. ED also uses rat-
ing criteria to steer applicants in particular directions. For example, in the
most recent RFA for NRC grant proposals, IEPS allocated 25 points for
“impact and evaluation,” encouraging applicants to propose strong self-
evaluation plans.
Applications may be submitted online or in paper form. IEPS staff
conduct a technical assistance meeting prior to each competition to inform
potential grantees about the process and the relevant criteria and priorities
for each competition. Once applications are received, IEPS convenes panels
of experts to review them according to the detailed rating criteria published
in the RFA. This process takes place electronically; reviewers do not meet
for face-to-face discussion. To review NRC and FLAS applications, IEPS
convenes separate panels for each world area made up of two area experts
and one language expert. The expert review panels rank all applications.
Panels reviewing NRC and FLAS applications compare and rank them
against other applications in that world area, while other panels review
and rank all applications in a program (e.g., all CIBER applications, all
IRS applications). ED awards grants to applicants ranked above a certain
cutoff point established for each program or world area. The committee
was told by ED officials that separate panels are used to ensure that there
OCR for page 74
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
is some capacity retained in each of the world areas and that this process is
currently being reconsidered. After a competition, applicants may request
from IEPS their rankings for each of the criteria and any specific comments
provided by the reviewers. This is typically sent in hard copy and may take
several days to receive. Applicants receive information about their own
application only.
Grant Monitoring Process
For the several programs that award multiyear grants, IEPS staff con-
duct annual grant reviews based on the information submitted via the Eval-
uation of Exchange, Language, International and Area Studies (EELIAS)
database.9 Individual project officers are expected to review the reports to
determine that the grantee has made reasonable progress. According to both
ED officials and grantee staff, site visits by IEPS project officers have been
severely curtailed in recent years, given staff and other resource limitations.
In addition, current departmental procedures require senior-level approval
of individual travel requests. The committee was told by ED officials that
the increased focus on evaluation in the application process, which now
includes a requirement to include an outside evaluator, was implemented in
part to address the limitations faced by staff to conduct on-site reviews.
Center Grants
As mentioned above, the NRC competition is run by world area, with
the targeted world area defined by the grantee. ED has directed applicants
toward particular world areas using application priorities. In some cases,
this has been in response to specific congressional directives included in ap-
propriations language and may be a factor in the distribution of grants. The
preference extended in the application process to applicants with existing
capacity may also be a factor in the relative constancy of centers focused
on any given world area. NRC awards have maintained three overall tiers
with the largest number of centers consistently being in areas of strategic
importance (see Figure 3-5):
• Largest number of centers: East Asia, Latin America, Middle East,
Russia/Eastern Europe
• Middle number of centers: Africa, International, South Asia, South-
east Asia, Western Europe
9 In February 2007, IEPS launched a redesigned system which was renamed International
Resource Information System. However, we refer to the system as EELIAS throughout this
report since that was the system in place during the committee’s analysis.
OCR for page 75
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION
Tier 1: More than 12 centers (n = 4 world areas)
20
18
16
14
Number of Funded NRCs
12
10
8 East Asia
Latin America
6
Middle East
4
Russia/E. Europe
2
0
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Year
Tier 2: More than 4, fewer than 12 centers (n = 5 world areas)
20
Africa Southeast Asia
18
International Western Europe
16
South Asia
Number of Funded NRCs
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Year
Tier 3: Fewer than 5 centers (n = 8 world areas)
20
Asia
18
Canada
16
Caribbean
Number of Funded NRCs
14
Central/Inner Asia
12 Europe
Europe/Russia
10
North America
8
Pacific Islands
6
4
2
0
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Year
FIGURE 3-5 Number of NRCs by world area and tier, 1973-2009.
3-5
OCR for page 76
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
• Lowest number of centers: Asia, Canada, Central/Inner Asia, Eu-
rope, Europe/Russia.
The committee notes, however, that since the world area focus is defined by
the applicant university, grantees focus on various configurations of Euro-
pean and Asian areas. The groupings above are based on how the grantees
defined their world area.
Unlike the NRC Program, which has experienced fluctuation in grant-
ees over time, the number of LRC and CIBER grantees has been relatively
unchanged. The LRC Program has increased the number of grantees in
each competition, typically by adding an LRC with a particular language
or topical focus (e.g., K-12, heritage speakers) but only one funded LRC
was unsuccessful in a subsequent competition. Similarly, although CIBERs
have been added, only one CIBER did not receive funding in a subsequent
competition.
Overall Demand
Demand for Title VI grants is substantial. Although more than half of
the NRC, FLAS, CIBER, and LRC applicants have received funding in the
past several competitions, a much smaller proportion of applicants has been
funded for the BIE, IRS, TICFIA, and UISFL Programs. In the most recent
competition, only about one-quarter of the applicants for these programs
were awarded grants. The number of applications for nearly all programs
has steadily increased over the past decade (see Table 3-3).
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS
AND THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT
The large research-intensive universities, which receive the bulk of Title
VI/FH funding, are typically organized into multiple levels. At the bottom
of the organizational hierarchy are the basic building blocks of the uni-
versity (Ruther, 2006), the departments, which are organized by academic
discipline. Departments play the central role in key employment decisions,
including recruiting, hiring, promoting, retaining, and dismissing faculty
and staff. These departmental building blocks are assembled into largely
autonomous schools and colleges, which form a higher level of internal
organization. At the top of the organizational hierarchy is the university
leadership, which typically includes the provost and the president. An un-
derstanding of this university context is important as it affects the ability of
Title VI/FH to accomplish objectives, such as supporting research, educa-
tion, and training, infusing a foreign language and area studies dimension
across disciplines, and conducting K-12 outreach.
OCR for page 77
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION
TABLE 3-3 Proportion of Title VI/FH Applications Funded and
Applications Received 1997-2006
Percentage of Applications Funded
(number of applications received)
Program 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
AORC 53 30 65 80
(15) (10) (17) (15)
BIE 28 30 33 30 29 38 30 31 25 33
(86) (90) (78) (92) (100) (88) (97) (93) (105) (85)
CIBE 37 65 75 79
(35) (23) (40) (39)
FLAS 82 73 71 73
(157) (163) (175) (171)
IRS 37 17 33 36 29 34 26 10 22 25
(57) (52) (40) (53) (42) (59) (104) (93) (89) (83)
LRC 56 56 65
(16) (25) (23)
71a
NRC 68 68 65 70
(161) (167) (167) (184) (178)
TICFIA 32 43 29
(25) (23) (34)
UISFL 33 28 48 38 33 28 22 27 31 24
(88) (95) (64) (77) (85) (106) (132) (103) (94) (92)
aDuring this time period, NRC competitions occurred every three years (e.g., 2000, 2003).
However, in 2002, to address a legislative mandate, four new NRCs were awarded from the
pool of applications received in 2000.
SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education.
Knowledge of a world area or global issue requires a range of depart-
ments, disciplines, and methods that may range from political science to
religious studies to law to language. To be effective, international research
and training may require participation of faculty not only from different
departments, but also from different schools or colleges. Yet because de-
partments typically reward faculty based on specialized research using deep
discipline-specific research methods and knowledge, participating in inter-
disciplinary international education may hurt a young faculty member’s
career. As a National Academies report on interdisciplinary research con-
cluded (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 2004, p. 3):
“In attempting to balance the strengthening of disciplines and the pursuit
of interdisciplinary research, education, and training, many institutions are
OCR for page 78
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
impeded by traditions and policies that govern hiring, promotion, tenure,
and resource allocation.”
To counteract such impediments and bring multiple disciplines together
around international issues, universities have created area studies centers
and other new organizational units. However, because these centers lie out-
side the mainstream structures and reward systems of the university, they
have always depended on external funding. Wealthy donors who had lived
or traveled abroad provided support for the earliest area study centers at
American universities in the late 19th century. During World War II, the
federal government funded additional centers for language and area train-
ing. In the postwar era, the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford foundations
provided continuing support for some area centers, but the federal govern-
ment emerged as the most important supporter of research and training in
foreign languages and area studies (Biddle, 2003). Although institutional
support for such centers has grown, their multidisciplinary approach con-
tinues to make them “an alternative axis of organization” (Trubek, 1999,
p. 142) in the university.
Challenges for International Education in the University Environment
Several trends over the past three decades have increased the pressures
on universities, exacerbating tensions between the mainstream departmen-
tal building blocks and the alternative axis of international education
structures (Trubek, 1999).
First, with the end of the cold war, some scholars and policy makers
questioned the need for in-depth study of world cultures and languages. At
the same time, some social science faculty, steeped in disciplinary traditions,
challenged the rigor of interdisciplinary area studies and opposed hiring
new faculty with area expertise. In language departments, faculty who had
won tenure based on scholarship in literature saw little reason to have to
teach modern foreign languages themselves, and foreign language instruc-
tion was often left to nontenure-track instructors. These critiques were
muted somewhat in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. In early
2007, a Modern Language Association panel recommended restructuring
the traditional model of language instruction to discontinue reliance on
lecturers and better incorporate study of history, culture, economics, and
society (Jaschik, 2007). However, international education faculty continue
to face financial and logistical challenges in carrying out their research
and teaching, particularly teaching of the less commonly taught languages
(Biddle, 2002). By the end of the 1990s, foundation funding that had sup-
ported international and area studies had substantially decreased.
Second, since the end of the 1970s, growing enrollments and declining
OCR for page 79
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION
state support have forced public colleges and universities to raise tuitions,
becoming competitors in the higher education marketplace rather than pro-
viders of a shared public good (Pusser, 2002). Private universities may also
face budget constraints, depending on the size of their endowments and the
fluctuations of the job market. Today, all universities compete vigorously,
nationally and internationally, to recruit the strongest students and faculty,
raise external funds, and secure tuitions. Recruiting students, especially
the best and brightest, is critically important for economic viability and to
win prestige. In a reinforcing cycle, prestige helps a university win external
support, and winning external support, in turn, enhances prestige. External
funding demonstrates to potential new faculty hires that the university is
dynamic and worth devoting a career to. Prestige helps a university place
doctoral graduates at top universities, increasing revenues and operating
flexibility (Ruther, 2006).
To compete successfully in this marketplace, universities must meet
high professional and academic standards. A young faculty member must
teach, do research, and publish in well-regarded journals in order to win
tenure. Tenure decisions may be reviewed at several levels before becoming
final. The quality of faculty publications is enhanced by the peer review
process for journal articles, and the quality of faculty teaching is reviewed
by students and peers. Some universities have adopted merit pay systems,
under which faculty member pay scales are based in part on student reviews
of faculty teaching.
Third, as competition for the best students has grown, student interest
in international education and foreign languages has been mixed. Between
academic years 1989-1990 and 2003-2004, the total number of B.A. de-
grees awarded in all fields grew by 33 percent, reflecting demographic
trends. Within this total, however, the number of social science and history
B.A.s grew only 27.3 percent. The number of B.A.s in foreign languages and
linguistics grew somewhat more rapidly, at 35.2 percent. However, both of
these growth rates were modest compared with the most rapidly growing
fields of study, including parks/recreation/leisure/fitness, at 383 percent,
computers and information sciences at 117 percent, visual and perform-
ing arts at 93 percent, and security and protective services at 83.5 percent
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2006).
Benefits and Complexities of Title VI Funding
In this environment of heightened competition for students, faculty,
and resources, Title VI funding is even more essential. Title VI funding can
help to overcome faculty resistance to new interdisciplinary approaches
and can also help to win institutional support. However, Title VI and other
OCR for page 80
0 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
external support cannot substitute over the long term for the tuition and
institutional resources that reflect success in the competitive higher educa-
tion marketplace. A key to success of any externally funded innovation is
buy-in from the colleges and schools, departments, and centers that make
up the building blocks of the university. Because Title VI grants require
universities to provide matching funding and other sources of support, they
help to generate buy-in and longer term support for international education
and foreign language training (Ruther, 2006).
While Title VI programs bring clear benefits to universities, the fund-
ing is relatively modest and brings new complexities. Applying for an NRC
grant is complex and time-consuming, requiring negotiations with adminis-
trators and faculty to ensure that required university commitments of fac-
ulty time, funding, and resources are in place. Success is not guaranteed in
the highly competitive process. Collaboration across universities or across
programs is complicated by the fact that they are in competition with one
another for very limited funds. If funds are received, they require further
rounds of negotiations to obtain the multidisciplinary expertise needed to
develop deep expertise in a region or world area and its languages. The
NRC director must have excellent skills in negotiation and persuasion to
succeed, and there is frequent turnover in these positions.
In recent years, the job of NRC director has become even more com-
plex and challenging, with reduced funding and expanding missions. The
most recent (2006) NRC grant awards average only $230,806, a decline of
8 percent from the previous grant cycle. Less money is available for core
activities, such as “buying out” a professor’s course load, so that he or
she has more time to conduct international research, or paying salaries for
instructors of the less commonly taught languages. At the same time, how-
ever, the NRC grant must support outreach to K-12 education and other
activities. As noted above, the most recent NRC grant awards included an
absolute priority for teacher training activities, a competitive priority for
activities to measure language proficiency, and five other invitational priori-
ties (Ruther, 2006).
The typical CIBER director faces other challenges. Although the aver-
age CIBER award in 2006 was also 7 percent less than in the previous
cycle, at $343,548, it was higher than the average NRC grant. By law and
through the award process described above, CIBER programs focus on a
narrower set of goals than do NRCs. However, the law requires that each
CIBER establish an advisory board of key stakeholders on campus, in busi-
ness, and in government. It also requires a contractual commitment from
the university for matching funds equal to the CIBER grant. As a result, the
CIBER director has a dedicated budget for the grant cycle, while the NRC
director has only the written commitments for matching funds included in
the grant application. The law also mandates that the CIBER must focus
OCR for page 81
TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS IMPLEMENTATION
half of its efforts on internationalizing the business school and the other
half on the larger business world and business educators, in order to en-
hance the global competitiveness of U.S. businesses. This means that the
CIBER director can focus program activities on two major audiences—the
business education community, including a small, closely knit community
on campus and national business faculty associations—and the business
community (Ruther, 2006). By comparison, the NRC director must serve a
much larger and more diffuse audience with differing needs.
CONCLUSION
The Title VI/FH international education programs at the U.S. Depart-
ment of Education are among several federal programs that support the
study of foreign languages and cultures. Although there are some similari-
ties between the Title VI/FH programs at ED and other foreign language
and area studies programs in terms of the types of activities funded, the
missions, focus, and purposes of the various programs differ. There are also
important differences in the emphases and content of the projects. Some
programs, such as the National Security Education Program and the Stokes
Scholarships, are specifically aimed at developing a pipeline of individuals
with specific talents into jobs at federal bureaucracies. They focus on a
narrow set of critical languages. The Fulbright program at the State Depart-
ment is a key component of U.S. public diplomacy efforts. The proposed
NSLI would add capacity in critical languages and move language train-
ing to elementary and secondary education. In contrast, the Title VI/FH
programs are designed to build capacity and expertise in the U.S. higher
education system in the broadly defined areas of modern foreign languages
and international and area studies. The Title VI/FH programs play a unique
role in the array of federally funded international education programs by
stimulating universities to create a broad infrastructure of faculty, courses,
and other academic activities focused on modern foreign languages, area
studies, and international training.
Although the Title VI/FH programs have a common objective in higher
education, they are administered as 14 separate programs. Overall fund-
ing has not kept pace with expansion in the number and objectives of the
programs, or with the demand for funds. In the case of the FLAS Program,
although average awards have increased as requested by Congress, the pur-
chasing power of those grants in relation to tuition costs has declined. The
ability of Title VI/FH to accomplish its broad mandate is hampered by the
limited availability of funds. For example, NRCs charged with expanded
objectives and expectations are expected to do so with little or no increase
in funds.
OCR for page 82
