Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
appendix A Legislative History* T he current array of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays (Title VI/FH) inter- national education programs is the product of nearly 50 years of legislative accretion. The result is a dense and at times complicated legislative history. Title VI, for example, was conceived as a temporary emergency measure in the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Later it was extended and revised several times, then folded into the Higher Education Act in 1980 and reviewed every six years. Existing programs were amended or reorganized repeatedly, new programs created, and some programs introduced but later cancelled. Despite nearly a half-century of legislative adjustments, the fundamen- tal rationales for the programs have changed little since the decade after their inception. The original goals of providing linguistic and international expertise to serve the national interest and global understanding endure. So too does the original mechanism selected to serve that goal, that is, working with institutions of higher education. Within that broader framework, however, several interesting changes have occurred. For example: â¢ In the last 25 years, the original goals were supplemented with the aim of linking Title VI to the nationâs economic competitiveness, producing two new programs. *âThis appendix is based largely on a paper written for the committee by Joanna Slater, who was then a graduate student at Columbia University. 267
268 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES â¢ The original requirements that beneficiaries of certain Title VI programs enter teaching or public service were later dropped. â¢ The relative emphasis placed on improving language skills versus increasing knowledge of area studies has shifted back and forth. â¢ Outreach efforts beyond higher education became a priority. It is important to note that although the Title VI/FH 102(b)(6) pro- grams have a common administrative home in the U.S. Department of Education, they have distinct legislative trajectories. Unlike the Title VI programs, which have been pushed and prodded regularly by Congress, the Fulbright-Hays 102(b)(6) programs entered the governmental bloodstream in 1961 and have stayed there, nearly undisturbed, ever since. The adjust- ments to these programs have been more administrative than legislative. The legislative history outlined here therefore focuses on the Title VI program, which has been influenced by 10 major pieces of legislation since its inception. When it is possible to discern, we have highlighted the ap- parent congressional intent behind the various program changes to provide additional insight into the programâs evolution. Overall, the legislative history of the Title VI program reveals how something that started as âa planned response to a national emergencyâ gradually became a âfocus of national resources for . . . understanding and managing interdependence, trade, security, and other international issuesâ (Ruther, 2002, p. 134). In that same time period, the programs grew to embrace all levels and catego- ries in the higher education system. However, while Congress adjusted the program configuration over timeâlargely by adding programs to address specific needs, such as international education for business purposes and the training of minoritiesâit did not make significant changes to the original core legislation. This evolution reflects shifting congressional priorities as well as efforts on the part of institutions of higher education and other constituencies to influence the future of the Title VI programs. In particular, the link between Title VI and foreign policy concerns has guided the programs since their inception in 1958. For example, the revision to Title VI that took place in 1998 provided a robust restatement of its goals for the postâcold war era. The legislative history of Title VI programs can be viewed as following three rough periods of development: the early years (1958-1972), when the foundation of the programs was established, a middle period (1973-1991) of embedding and revising, and the current phase (1992 onward), during â The programs that form Title VI have always represented a relatively small provision within a larger piece of legislation, first in the National Defense Education Act and later in the Higher Education Act. The result is that Title VI receives very little attention in congressional debates, which tend to be consumed by discussions of such topics as student loan programs.
APPENDIX A 269 which the scope of the programs has been broadened. See Attachment A for the complete current statute. (Attachment A is available online. Go to http://www.nap.edu and search for International Education and Foreign Languages.) LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS (1958-1972) Three pieces of legislation form the foundation for todayâs Title VI/FH programs: the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the Mutual Educa- tional and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, and the International Education Act of 1966. Although the latter was never funded, its programs, focus, and some of its language were later incorporated into Title VI. National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864) The launch of the unmanned satellite Sputnik by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957, provided the impetus for the legislation that was to be- come the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). The scientific coup by the countryâs cold war rival produced widespread alarm and, by December of the same year, the Eisenhower administration announced its legisla- tive proposal to address the situation. Much of the administrationâs plan focused on improving scientific expertise, but it also included graduate fel- lowships and grants to universities for language study. After two different versions of the proposed legislation were introduced in Congress in 1958, six months of hearings followed. For the most part, however, the testimony demonstrated a âconspicuous silenceâ (Gumperz, 1970, p. 51) regarding the language title in the bill. One exception was the testimony of Lawrence Derthick, the commis- sioner for education, who noted that the billâs âfundamental objective is to improve greatly the quality of foreign language instruction at all levels of our education system. . . . [A]s a first step, the urgent need is to improve the language competence of teachers and supervisors now in service and to seek to stimulate the whole field of language instruction.â Only two outside groups lent their support to the embryonic Title VI: the Modern Language Association (MLA) and the American Council of Learned Societies. Some of the provisions included in Title VI can be traced to the influence of the MLA and its executive director, William Parker, who wrote a book in 1954 entitled âThe National Interest and Foreign Languages.â Parker was a vocal advocate for greater government support of foreign language teaching in higher education and recommended integrating foreign language and area â Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Hearings on Science and Education for National Defense, 85th Con., 2nd sess., February 1958, 343.
270 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES study. He later joined the U.S. Office of Education âto help administer the new structures [he] had done so much to createâ (Gumperz, 1970, p. 59). The overall aim of the NDEA was to correct âcritical areas of shortage and neglect which now carry highest priority in the national interestââin particular, science, math, and foreign languages. In describing the purpose of the section that would become Title VI, the House committee report states that its primary objective is to extend and improve the teaching of foreign languages in the United States. It adds that the title will also âpro- vide the means of preparing more Americans to conduct governmental, business, and cultural relations in an effective way.â To create such language specialists and improve foreign language in- struction, the act relied on four main tools: â¢ Language and area centers for instruction in modern foreign lan- guages and other fields âneeded to provide a full understandingâ of the areas in which those languages are used. The centers would be operated by institutions of higher education under contract with the government, which would provide up to 50 percent of the funding. The foreign languages taught in the centers were limited to those for which âadequate instructionâ was not already readily available in the United States (National Resource Centers). â¢ Stipends to individuals engaged in such language training, with the understanding that the recipients would be âavailable for teaching a modern foreign language in an institution of higher education or for [sic] other service of a public natureâ (Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships). â¢ Studies and research on the need for foreign language instruction, improved teaching methods, and the development of specialized teaching materials (International Research and Studies). â¢ Summer and academic year language institutes for foreign language teachers in elementary or secondary schools. Like the language and area centers, the institutes would be operated by institutions of higher education under contract with the government (this part of Title VI was later repealed and transferred). The congressional debate on the legislation featured discussions on the scarcity of scientists in the United States, the alarming Soviet advantage in technical fields, and the advisability of federal meddling in higher education. â House Committee on Education and Labor, Report No. 2157 to accompany H.R. 13247, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., July 15, 1958, 4743. â House Committee on Education and Labor, Report No. 2157 to accompany H.R. 13247, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., July 15, 1958, 4743.
APPENDIX A 271 At least one representative scoffed at the notion that the billâintended as a temporary measureâwould be short-lived: âThere is nothing so permanent as a temporary Government agency. Nor is there anything more lingering than the emergency in which it was born,â noted William Dawson (R-UT) in the House of Representatives debate on the bill on August 7, 1958. Several representatives bemoaned the lack of language skills in the American diplomatic corps, especially when compared with their Soviet counterparts. The foreign language section of the bill inspired little con- troversy and at least one staunch defender, Representative James Roosevelt (D-CA): In all conscience there is probably no section of the bill which would be entitled to more universal support than this section. . . . [L]anguage instruction in our schools and colleges is so badly neglected that we do not even have enough people who are proficient in French, Spanish, and German to meet the requirements of our international affairs.Â .Â .Â . The fast-moving events of the last few years have dramaticallyâoften, for us, tragicallyârevealed the emergence of the peoples of Africa and Asia into the centers of world power. Yet for the most part we know nothing of their languages and all too little of their cultures. Some parts of the discussion are surprisingly contemporary. One rep- resentative described his shock upon discovering that only five American diplomats working in Arabic-speaking countries were fluent in the language (the comparable figure for the Soviet Union, he claimed, was 300). An- other representative shared this frustration but went on to note that âeven though we train these individuals in foreign languages under this bill, there is nothing in the bill that can compel them to go to Lebanon or any other territory or country on the face of the earth after they have learned that foreign language.â President Eisenhower signed the NDEA into law in September 1958. The law was authorized for an initial period of four years, but Congress repeatedly extended its life span at different points during the 1960s. The 1958 statute left significant concepts open to interpretationâfor example, what exactly constituted a âcenter.â The center concept was not formally delineated in the act and it âin no way prescribed the directions of growth which a center was to take.Â .Â .Â . The doctrine of âlocal optionââthe centerâs right to self-determinationâprevailed from the beginningâ (Axel- rod and Bigelow, 1962, pp. 13-14). The most enduring legacy of the act was the establishment of a fed- eral role in stimulating certain programs in higher education. When once universities funded foreign language and international studies internally or â Congressional Record, House, August 7, 1958, 16692-3. â Congressional Record, House, August 7, 1958, 16568.
272 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES looked to private foundations for such support, the legislation introduced the option of federal funding. Although the amount of funding available was modest, it nevertheless represented a significant change in the academic landscape. As Ellen Gumperz has noted, once institutions of higher educa- tion are in âcompetition for federal funds, they must suffer the fortunes of the national market economy so createdâ (1970, p. 76). Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-256) Much like the NDEA three years earlier, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 was shaped by cold war concerns. Politi- cians and diplomats worried that the Soviet Union was bolstering its own educational and cultural exchanges and wanted to ensure that American programs remained effective. Brooks Hays, then the assistant secretary of state, wrote a letter in support of the legislation, arguing that it would allow the United States to maintain its advantage in this arena at a time when âcompetitive efforts by the adversaries of free society are continually increasing.â The main goal of the legislation was to consolidate and simplify a host of existing governmental exchange programs in order to better serve Ameri- can interests abroad. The House committee report, for example, remarks that, âin the current struggle for the minds of men, no other instrument of foreign policy has such great potential.â The legislation aimed not only to better coordinate visits by foreigners to the United States, but also to im- prove the flow of Americans abroad, whether they were students, teachers, artists, or athletes. In the service of this latter objective, legislators proposed a section on overseas study for teacher training. This was a new type of exchange, focusing on âlanguage training and specialized studies of areas or countries [by] Americans who teach such subjects in schools, colleges, and universities.â The final wording of the statute aimed to support visits and study abroad by teachers and âprospective teachers.â The House commit- tee noted that it expected the administrators of the program to implement ârigid criteriaâ10 to ensure that recipients enter teaching for a certain period of time following the program abroad. In the congressional debate on the legislation, Senator J. William Ful- â House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report No. 87-1094 to accompany H.R. 8666, 87th Cong., 1st sess., August 31, 1961, 2775. â House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report No. 87-1094 to accompany H.R. 8666, 2759. â House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report No. 87-1094 to accompany H.R. 8666, 2765. 10âHouse Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report No. 87-1094 to accompany H.R. 8666, 2765.
APPENDIX A 273 bright (D-AR) declared, âThe activities of the [Soviet] bloc do serve as a reminder of the foreign policy significance of exchanges, and of the need to put our own house in order.â11 Representative John Lindsay (R-New York) described the prior approach to educational and cultural exchanges as âpiecemeal and sporadic,â despite the fact that such programs are âan es- sential part of our foreign relations. . . . Educational and cultural exchange is as fundamentalâthough far less costlyâan instrument of foreign policy as our massive programs of defense and foreign aid.â12 Thanks to the intervention of the U.S. Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, the act featured a provision that allowed the president to transfer authority for certain exchanges to different arms of the govern- mentâa move aimed squarely at the teacher exchanges created by Section 102(b)(5). In a letter to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Abra- ham Ribicoff, the secretary of health, education, and welfare, wrote that the aim of such exchanges was âessentially the sameâ as the programs of Title VIâthat is, to promote âmodern foreign language training and area studies in U.S. schools, colleges, and universities.â13 He asked that the au- thority for these exchanges be vested in his department, and the president later agreed. In later years these programs âwere recast into more functional cat- egories to ensure balanced coverage with available resources (for example, Faculty Research Abroad, Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad, Group Projects Abroad, and Foreign Curriculum Consultants, now Seminars Abroad-Bilateral Projects)â (Vestal, 1994, p. 129). No further major legis- lative changes to these programs occurred. International Education Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-698) In a speech given in honor of the bicentennial of the Smithsonian Insti- tution in fall 1965, President Lyndon Johnson announced the creation of a broad initiative in global health and education. âIdeas, not armaments, will shape our lasting prospects for peace,â he told the assembled digni- taries. âThe conduct of our foreign policy will advance no faster than the curriculum of our classrooms.â In a speech to Congress in February 1966, he outlined a 20-point plan to bolster international education in the United States while also strengthening educational assistance and disease preven- tion efforts abroad. For some of the points mentioned, new legislation was required. 11â Congressional Record, Senate, June 27, 1961, 11400. 12â Congressional Record, House, September 6, 1961, 18273-4. 13â Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, 87th Cong., 1st sess., March and April 1961, 109.
274 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES During the hearings on the proposed legislation, John Gardner, the secretary of health, education, and welfare, testified that it was âbased on a new premiseâthe premise that international education at home and edu- cational relations with other nations are permanent and important aspects of our national interest.Â .Â .Â . [T]he reason becomes plain when we think about the enemy we seek to conquer. That enemy is ignorance, inadequate skills, parochialism, and lack of sensitivity as to why people from different cultures react and behave differently.â14 Instead of instituting training mechanisms or educational exchanges to directly serve national security or foreign policy goals, the International Education Act (IEA) sought to improve international studies more broadly. The rationale provided in the act was that âa knowledge of other countries is of the utmost importance in promoting mutual understanding and coop- eration between nations.â The goals of the legislation were twofold: to build a strong base at the graduate level for international research and studies and to allow students at the undergraduate level âa chance to learn more about the world and the cultures, customs, and values of other countries.â15 The latter program was included for substantive as well as political reasons: ever since the pas- sage of the NDEA, smaller universities and colleges had agitated for their share of federal support for international studies and language programs (Gumperz, 1970, p. 68). The actâs two main sections established the following programs: â¢ Grants to institutions of higher education to operate graduate cen- ters for research and training in international studies and the international aspects of professional and other fields of study; grants to nonprofit agen- cies and organizations were also authorized for the same objective; and â¢ Grants to institutions of higher education to assist them in strength- ening undergraduate instruction in international studies, including such activities as curriculum development, expansion of language courses, and training of faculty members abroad. A separate provision in the IEA also made three amendments to the NDEA that (1) revised the NDEA to allow area centers to focus on such languages as French, Spanish, and Italian, (2) removed the 50 percent ceil- ing on federal participation in centers, and (3) allowed the government to fund centers through grants as well as contracts. Although the IEA was a White House initiative, the Johnson admin- 14â CongressionalRecord, House, March 30, 1966, 7284. 15â Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Report No. 1715 to accompany H.R. 14643, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., October 12, 1966, 3566.
APPENDIX A 275 istration provided little help to the House managers working to pass the bill. At the time, the administration was besieged with other issues, among them âurban rioting, civil rights and Black Power demonstrations, antiwar protests, and concerns about inflationâ (Vestal, 1994, p. 67). Opposition to the bill surfaced during the congressional debates on the new measure. Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC), for example, questioned the wisdom of spending on a new domestic program while the country was at war in Vietnam. Senator Fulbright voiced the opposite view: âIf there is any hope at all for a peaceful world,â he declared, âIt will result from the kind of activity for which this bill provides.â16 Although the bill was eventually passed and later signed into law in Oc- tober 1966, opposition from Congress continued to plague the IEA, which was never funded. Numerous factors contributed to its failure: the president was consumed with the war in Vietnam, while Congress was increasingly distrustful of presidential initiatives and wary of new spending. One scholar described the mood on Capitol Hill as one of âweariness and a feeling of having been overcommitted, at home at abroad, by an Administration that enters ventures without looking down the road to where they may leadâ (Vestal, 1994, p. 94). Theodore Vestal also believes that âthe lack of political cloutâ (Vestal, 1994, p. 119) on the part of representatives of higher education contributed to the defeat of the IEA. Still, the unfunded IEAâlike a âcontinuing stream of light from a dead but brilliant starâ (Ruther, 2002, p. 119)âwould provide the direction for several of the changes to Title VI over the fol- lowing two decades. The IEAâs supporters drew several lessons for future international education efforts from its demise: donât disregard the national security rationale for such programs, try to make sure the program isnât mistaken for foreign aid, and beware of a situation in which legislation is hostage to larger domestic and geopolitical forces. Education Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-318) Despite an attempt by the Nixon administration to eliminate Title VI, lobbying by representatives of higher education (combined with an inter- vention by national security adviser Henry Kissinger himself) managed to save the programs. Still, the Nixon and Ford administrations represented a difficult time for the advocates of Title VI, who found themselves engaged in a constant struggle against funding cuts. The Educational Amendments of 1972 once again extended and revised the programs. At the same time, the amendments enshrined a shift in federal higher education policy toward 16â Congressional Record, Senate, October 13, 1966, 26562-3.
276 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES prioritizing student aid over support to institutions. This shift in turn con- tributed to the difficult funding environment for Title VI. The amendments reflected both the goals of the IEA and arguments ad- vanced by higher education advocates during the hearings on the proposed legislation. Two important new arguments for the programs surfaced in the testimony: the first was that the centers served as a national resource and therefore it was critical to maintain and expand them; the second was that the centers had a positive impact beyond their immediate university sur- roundings by disseminating expertise to other educational institutions and to society writ large. This line of argument presaged the role the centers would later play in outreach efforts. The most significant change to Title VI stemming from the 1972 amend- ments was the creation of an undergraduate grant program similar to that envisioned by the IEA: the Undergraduate International Studies and For- eign Language Program. The purpose, according to the House committee report, was to reflect the conviction that âadditional emphasis should now be placed on undergraduate education in language and area studiesâ and that âthe center approach be modified to include a more program oriented concept of language and area studies.â17 EMBEDDING AND REVISING (1973-1991) Fifteen years after its inception, Title VI could be deemed a success: although originally a temporary program, it had been extended several times. Still, debates remained over the appropriate funding levels, how broadly the programs should extend across the higher education system, which languages warranted focus, and whether the programs were effective in addressing foreign policy concerns. Especially in the early to mid-1970s, some of these debates would trans- late into a difficult period for Title VI. As Nancy Ruther has noted, during this time the programs were âconsolidated and refined in the trenches of regulations rather than on the sunny playing fields of legislative initiatives and authorizations of earlier periodsâ (2002, p. 119). Things began to look up during the Carter administration. In 1980, Title VI finally found a permanent statutory home within the Higher Edu- cation Act (HEA). It also began to incorporate a new rationale for interna- tional education effortsâeconomic competitiveness. The result was several new programs as well as minor amendments to existing programs. 17â House Committee on Education and Labor, Report No. 92-554 to accompany H.R. 7248, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., October 8, 1971, 2499.
APPENDIX A 277 Education Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-482) The Education Amendments of 1976 did not make any major changes to the existing Title VI programs. However, they did institute a new pro- gram to deepen student understanding of âcultures and actions of other nations to better evaluate the international and domestic impact of major national policies.â Unlike other Title VI programs, the grant recipients under the program were not limited to institutions of higher education. Ruther suggests that the program was a response to âincreasing pressure from post-secondary education and school advocacy groups traditionally distant from core Title VI fundingâ (2002, p. 126). Four years later, the program was transferred to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Foreign Language Assistance Program). The programâs short tenure in Title VI illustrates the scramble for resources among different constituen- cies in education and the focus of Title VI on higher education. It also demonstrates the fact that beyond the centerpiece programs of Title VIâthe centers and their fellowshipsâthere continued to be a good deal of flux in the program mix. Education Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-374) After weathering a hostile funding environment for much of the 1970s, the Title VI programs received a more positive form of attention under the Carter administration. President Carter created the Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies by executive order in 1978. A year later, it produced a report calling for $178 million in new funding for international education programs.18 More broadly, the late 1970s were a time of concern about the place of the United States in the world economy as the country appeared to lose ground to more nimble competitors. In 1979, for example, Congress passed major trade legislation. For Title VI, such concerns translated into an entirely new section, with the aim of promoting activities that âcontrib- ute to the ability of United States business to prosper in an international economy.â In its report on the bill, the House Committee on Education and Labor emphasized the âinterdependent nature of the worldâs economyâ and the âvulnerability of the United States if it does not become more aware of the cultures and languages of other countries.â Representative Paul Simon (D-IL) initiated hearings in 1979 with the goal of finding Title VI a more permanent statutory home in HEA. Origi- nally intended as a temporary measure, Title VI had become a permanent 18â Ruther notes that due to the timing and focus of the report, these recommendations were not as effective as they might have been. It was not completed in time for the 1979 hearings on incorporating Title VI into the Higher Education Act.
278 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES fixture on the federal stage. It had undergone numerous revisions and carried with it the lingering aspirations of the failed IEA. In an effort to consolidate and clarify the governmentâs international education efforts, Congress repealed Title VI of the NDEA and Title I of the IEA and replaced them with a new Title VI in the Higher Education Act entitled âInterna- tional and Foreign Language Studies.â In its report on the bill, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources described the shift as a way to âmainstreamâ the Title VI pro- grams, âa matter of putting an existing program in a framework which has become more appropriate and offers greater impact.â It also spoke approv- ingly of bringing a âreinvigorating international business perspective into juxtaposition with the old NDEA programs.â The new Title VI to be incorporated into the Higher Education Act articulated a clear basis for international education programs: that knowl- edge of other countries is important to promoting mutual understanding and cooperation between nations, and that acquiring such knowledge was critical to the economy and security of the United States. In other words, it combined the rationales expressed in the NDEA, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, and the IEA. During the debate on the measure, Representative Simon made sure to highlight Title VI, which he described as âa part of this legislation which is not likely to receive much attention but which is significant to the na- tion.â19 He continued: âWhat this legislation does is, for the first time, really coordinates [international studies programs]. What we have had up to this point is just kind of spasmodic programs. . . . I think we will now finally not only have an aid to higher education, but literally an aid to the Nation.â20 The legislation made several important changes to the Title VI programs: â¢ Grants to institutions of higher education were authorized to create centers to act as regional resources focused either on specific geographic ar- eas or on particular international issues; in order to qualify for such grants, the centers would provide programs to strengthen international studies and foreign languages in the two-year and four-year colleges and universities in their region (in another example of programmatic flux, this program was replaced six years later). â¢ The act dropped the requirement that recipients of stipends be available for teaching or public service. The report of the House Committee on Education and Labor explained that this requirement was too ârestric- 19â Congressional Record, House, October 29, 1979, 29844. 20â Congressional Record, House, October 29, 1979, 29844.
APPENDIX A 279 tiveâ in light of the scarcity of teaching positions and its desire to encourage individuals seeking careers outside teachingâsuch as businessâto partici- pate in these programs. â¢ The act stipulated that excellence would be the primary criterion for the awarding of grants to the graduate and undergraduate centers, with equitable distribution in terms of geography a secondary consideration. â¢ Grants to institutions of higher education for programs designed to promote linkages with the U.S. business community were authorized, for example to internationalize the curriculum at business schools, to develop specialized materials and facilities for business-oriented students, or to establish student and faculty fellowships, among other activities (Business and International Education Program). â¢ An advisory board was created and directed to meet four times a year to review the Title VI programs. Members of the board would repre- sent different government departments, the higher education community, the business community, and the public (this provision was later eliminated, presumably as a cost-cutting measure.) â¢ For the first time, the act provided definitions of such terms as âarea studies,â âinternational business,â âexport education,â and âinter- nationalization of curricula.â Higher Education Amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-498) During the next round of amendments to Title VI, only one major change occurred: the regional network of international studies centers established in 1980 was replaced with a program of language resource centers. The goal of the new program was to âdevelop research on teach- ing methods and materials for foreign languages, including developing language proficiency exams.â21 The change represents a swing of the statu- tory pendulum back toward a focus on language teaching in the Title VI programs. Other changes tinkered with the way existing Title VI programs oper- ated. The amendments introduced a second tier of fellowships for graduate students in their third year of training to be awarded on the basis of a na- tional competition (this change was never implemented and later dropped). Legislators also directed the secretary of education to set separate criteria for the selection of graduate and undergraduate centers in the centerpiece program of Title VI. Perhaps not coincidentally, a definition of what con- stituted a âcomprehensiveâ and âundergraduateâ center finally appeared 21â House Committee on Education and Labor, Report No. 99-383 to accompany H.R. 3700, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., November 20, 1985, 2686.
280 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES in the statute. Since some centers had already existed for nearly 30 years, however, the definition was probably more descriptive than prescriptive: [T]he term âcomprehensive language and area centerâ means an admin- istrative unit of a university that contributes significantly to the national interest in advanced research and scholarship, employs a critical mass of scholars in diverse disciplines related to a geographic concentration, offers intensive language training in languages of its area specialization, main- tains important library collections related to the area, and makes training available in language and area studies to a graduate, postgraduate, and undergraduate clientele. Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-418) As the 1980s drew to a close, there was renewed concern about U.S. competitiveness, as Asian economies continued their remarkable rise and Western Europe moved closer to an integrated market. The concern was paired with the realization that the United States would be competing in an increasingly globalized economy, a world for which traditional business curricula were little prepared. Embedded in the Omnibus Trade and Com- petitiveness Act of 1988 was a provision to create Centers for International Business Education to act as a focal point for internationalizing business education. The program was later transferred to Title VI, which, although it already had a program aimed at business education, did not have centers designated for the task. BROADENING THE SCOPE (1992 ONWARD) In the postâcold war environment beginning in the early 1990s, out- reach efforts became increasingly important, as did attempts to promote diversity. Renewed concern surfaced about the quality of language instruc- tion, together with moves to improve it. Funding also began to incre- mentally increase as the nationâs need for global and language expertise expanded. Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (P.L. 102-325) The next opportunity to review the Title VI programs arrived at a momentous time in geopolitical terms. As legislators discussed and negoti- ated the higher education amendments, not even three years had passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet Union was close to collapse. Meanwhile, the Persian Gulf war in early 1991 formed the backdrop for the hearings and committee reports on the amendments. The House report described the period as one of âunprecedented global challengesâ and reaf-
APPENDIX A 281 firmed its support for the Title VI programs as âvital to the national inter- est.â However, its goal with respect to the programs was modestâmerely âto refine the title further.â22 Indeed, there were no sweeping changes made to the Title VI programs in light of postâcold war realities, in terms of either language or program- ming. The most significant revision was the addition of a new program, the Institute for International Public Policy, which aimed to increase the number of underrepresented minorities entering the international career field. In its report, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources noted with concern that only 13 percent of those serving in the U.S. Foreign Service were minorities, and only 6 percent were black. One reason for the relative modesty of the changes to the Title VI pro- grams at this juncture may be that, in 1991, Congress passed the David L. Boren National Security Education Act, the first major new piece of legisla- tion targeting international education in nearly 30 years. The act authorized a new program of scholarships, fellowships, and grants for undergradu- ate and graduate students to be administered by the U.S. Department of Defense. Some scholars credit the actâs creation to the stature enjoyed by its sponsor, Senator David Boren (D-OK) (Ruther, 2002). The noteworthy amendments to Title VI in 1992 were as follows: â¢ The creation of the Institute for International Public Policy, consist- ing of a competitive grants program in which a host institution leads a con- sortium of historically black colleges and other institutions with significant minority enrollment; the institute was directed to offer a program leading to a masterâs degree in international relations, to conduct an academic year abroad program, and to provide an academic year internship program for sophomores and juniors to work in an international voluntary or govern- ment agency. â¢ The amendments established a new type of grant in the center pro- gram to be used specifically for outreach purposes. The House committee noted that the Middle Eastern studies centers had played a role in providing expertise and background to the government, private organizations, and the media during the Persian Gulf war. As the world becomes âmore complex and unpredictable,â it noted, âthe need for public outreach is also increas- ing.â Although the department never awarded separate outreach grants, outreach was added as a core component of all existing National Resource Centers grants. â¢ A definition of the term âcritical languagesâ was included in the statute for the first time via reference to the U.S. Department of Educa- 22â House Committee on Education and Labor, Report No. 102-447 to accompany H.R. 3553, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., February 27, 1992, 435.
282 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES tionâs list posted in the Federal Register (the published lists includes 171 languages). â¢ Grants to American research centers situated overseas were per- mitted in order to enable such centers to promote postgraduate research, exchanges, and area studies, on the condition that they received more that 50 percent of their funding from public or private sources in the United States (American Overseas Research Centers). â¢ The Senate committee attempted to create a new section of Title VI to incorporate the Fulbright-Hays 102(b)(6) programs. Its logic was that âat a time of growth and evolution in international educationÂ .Â .Â .Â the two programs [should] not only be administered together but also reviewed together.â23 It also specified that the move should not be construed as a consolidation that invites a reduction in funding. In the end, however, the House conferees objected to the change and the Fulbright-Hays 102(b)(6) programs remained in their original statutory home. Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244) The main contribution of this round of amendments was to provide a robust restatement of the goals and purpose of Title VI in a unipolar world: The security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States in a complex global era depend upon American experts in and citizens knowl- edgeable about world regions, foreign languages, and international affairs.Â .Â .Â . Advances in communications technology and the growth of regional and global problems make knowledge of other countries and the ability to communicate in other languages more essential.Â .Â .Â . Dramatic postâcold war changes in the worldâs geopolitical and economic landscapes are creating needs for American expertise and knowledge about a greater diversity of less commonly taught foreign languages and nations of the world. Another fresh development was the creation of a grant program (Tech- nological Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign Information Access) to promote ways to use new electronic technologies to address teaching and research needs in international education and foreign languages. 23â Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Report No. 102-204 to accompany S. 1150, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., November 12, 1991.
APPENDIX A 283 CONCLUSION The legislative history of the Title VI/FH programs charts the evolution of a temporary international education program into an enduring fixture on the federal stage. The program mix has shifted in response to foreign policy imperatives, economic concerns, lobbying by institutions of higher education, and perceived needs in language training and international stud- ies. The programs have been broadened to embrace not only immediate national security concerns but also concerns related to global competitive- ness and a more internationally aware citizenry. Although there have been multiple changes in the program through- out its legislative history, core aspects of the program have remained un- changed. It acknowledges the importance of not only foreign language learning, but also an understanding of the cultural context in which the languages are spoken and the political, social, and economic issues in a range of nations of the world. It also supports the value of internationaliza- tion both in terms of producing experts needed to address national security, government, business and higher education needs and enriching the higher education curriculum. Overall, the legislative history of the Title VI/FH programs suggests that significant shifts in direction are largely the result of three types of forces: a catalytic event, such as the Sputnik launch; a presidential initiative, such as the IEA or the Commission on Foreign Languages and International Stud- ies; or the involvement of a dedicated and respected member of Congress. Unlike the Fulbright-Hays programs, Title VI has a built-in six-year review process that provides regular opportunities for revision and change. That same process also provides an opening for a tussle over resources among various players in the higher education arena as well as a continuous target for both proponents and detractors of a greater federal role.
284 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES ATTACHMENT A-1 Current Title VI Statute TITLE VIâINTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS PART AâINTERNATIONAL AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES SEC. 601. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) FINDINGSâCongress finds as follows: The security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States in (1) a complex global era depend upon American experts in and citizens knowledgeable about world regions, foreign languages, and interna- tional affairs, as well as upon a strong research base in these areas. Advances in communications technology and the growth of regional (2) and global problems make knowledge of other countries and the abil- ity to communicate in other languages more essential to the promotion of mutual understanding and cooperation among nations and their peoples. Dramatic post-Cold War changes in the worldâs geopolitical and (3) economic landscapes are creating needs for American expertise and knowledge about a greater diversity of less commonly taught foreign languages and nations of the world. Systematic efforts are necessary to enhance the capacity of institu- (4) tions of higher education in the United States forâ (A) producing graduates with international and foreign language expertise and knowledge; and research regarding such expertise and knowledge. (B) Cooperative efforts among the Federal Government, institutions (5) of higher education, and the private sector are necessary to promote the generation and dissemination of information about world regions, foreign languages, and international affairs throughout education, gov- ernment, business, civic, and nonprofit sectors in the United States. (b) PURPOSESâThe purposes of this part areâ (1) (A) to support centers, programs, and fellowships in institutions of higher education in the United States for producing increased â From the 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, P.L. 105-244.
APPENDIX A 285 numbers of trained personnel and research in foreign languages, area studies, and other international studies; to develop a pool of international experts to meet national (B) needs; (C) to develop and validate specialized materials and techniques for foreign language acquisition and fluency, emphasizing (but not limited to) the less commonly taught languages; to promote access to research and training overseas; and (D) to advance the internationalization of a variety of disciplines (E) throughout undergraduate and graduate education; to support cooperative efforts promoting access to and the dis- (2) semination of international and foreign language knowledge, teaching materials, and research, throughout education, government, business, civic, and nonprofit sectors in the United States, through the use of advanced technologies; and to coordinate the programs of the Federal Government in the areas (3) of foreign language, area studies, and other international studies, in- cluding professional international affairs education and research. SEC. 602. GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE LANGUAGE AND AREA CENTERS AND PROGRAMS. (a) NATIONAL LANGUAGE AND AREA CENTERS AND PROGRAMS AUTHORIZEDâ CENTERS AND PROGRAMSâ (1) IN GENERALâThe Secretary is authorizedâ (A) to make grants to institutions of higher education, or combi- (i) nations thereof, for the purpose of establishing, strengthening, and operating comprehensive foreign language and area or international studies centers and programs; and to make grants to such institutions or combinations for the (ii) purpose of establishing, strengthening, and operating a diverse network of undergraduate foreign language and area or inter- national studies centers and programs. NATIONAL RESOURCESâThe centers and programs referred (B) to in paragraph (1) shall be national resources forâ
286 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES teaching of any modern foreign language; (i) instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding (ii) of areas, regions, or countries in which such language is com- monly used; (iii) research and training in international studies, and the international and foreign language aspects of professional and other fields of study; and (iv) instruction and research on issues in world affairs that concern one or more countries. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIESâAny such grant may be used to pay (2) all or part of the cost of establishing or operating a center or program, including the cost ofâ teaching and research materials; (A) curriculum planning and development; (B) establishing and maintaining linkages with overseas institutions (C) of higher education and other organizations that may contribute to the teaching and research of the center or program; bringing visiting scholars and faculty to the center to teach or (D) to conduct research; professional development of the centerâs faculty and staff; (E) projects conducted in cooperation with other centers addressing (F) themes of world regional, cross-regional, international, or global importance; (G) summer institutes in the United States or abroad designed to provide language and area training in the centerâs field or topic; and (H) support for faculty, staff, and student travel in foreign areas, regions, or countries, and for the development and support of edu- cational programs abroad for students. GRANTS TO MAINTAIN LIBRARY COLLECTIONSâThe Sec- (3) retary may make grants to centers described in paragraph (1) having important library collections, as determined by the Secretary, for the maintenance of such collections. OUTREACH GRANTS AND SUMMER INSTITUTESâThe Sec- (4) retary may make additional grants to centers described in paragraph (1) for any one or more of the following purposes:
APPENDIX A 287 (A) Programs of linkage or outreach between foreign language, area studies, or other international fields, and professional schools and colleges. Programs of linkage or outreach with 2- and 4-year colleges (B) and universities. Programs of linkage or outreach with departments or agencies (C) of Federal and State governments. Programs of linkage or outreach with the news media, business, (D) professional, or trade associations. Summer institutes in foreign area, foreign language, and other (E) international fields designed to carry out the programs of linkage and outreach described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D). (b) GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND AREA OR INTERNATIONAL STUDIESâ IN GENERALâThe Secretary is authorized to make grants to (1) institutions of higher education or combinations of such institutions for the purpose of paying stipends to individuals undergoing advanced training in any center or program approved by the Secretary. ELIGIBLE STUDENTSâStudents receiving stipends described in (2) paragraph (1) shall be individuals who are engaged in an instructional program with stated performance goals for functional foreign language use or in a program developing such performance goals, in combination with area studies, international studies, or the international aspects of a professional studies program, including predissertation level studies, preparation for dissertation research, dissertation research abroad, and dissertation writing. (c) SPECIAL RULE WITH RESPECT TO TRAVELâNo funds may be expended under this part for undergraduate travel except in accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary setting forth policies and procedures to assure that Federal funds made available for such travel are expended as part of a formal program of supervised study. (d) ALLOWANCESâStipends awarded to graduate level recipients may include allowances for dependents and for travel for research and study in the United States and abroad.
288 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES SEC. 603. LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTERS. (a) LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTERS AUTHORIZEDâThe Secretary is authorized to make grants to and enter into contracts with institutions of higher education, or combinations of such institutions, for the purpose of establishing, strengthening, and operating a small number of national language resource and training centers, which shall serve as resources to improve the capacity to teach and learn foreign languages effectively. (b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIESâThe activities carried out by the centers described in subsection (a)â shall include effective dissemination efforts, whenever appropriate; (1) and may includeâ (2) (A) the conduct and dissemination of research on new and im- proved teaching methods, including the use of advanced educa- tional technology; the development and dissemination of new teaching materials (B) reflecting the use of such research in effective teaching strategies; the development, application, and dissemination of performance (C) testing appropriate to an educational setting for use as a standard and comparable measurement of skill levels in all languages; the training of teachers in the administration and interpretation (D) of performance tests, the use of effective teaching strategies, and the use of new technologies; a significant focus on the teaching and learning needs of the (E) less commonly taught languages, including an assessment of the strategic needs of the United States, the determination of ways to meet those needs nationally, and the publication and dissemination of instructional materials in the less commonly taught languages; the development and dissemination of materials designed to (F) serve as a resource for foreign language teachers at the elementary and secondary school levels; and (G) the operation of intensive summer language institutes to train advanced foreign language students, to provide professional devel- opment, and to improve language instruction through preservice and inservice language training for teachers. (c) CONDITIONS FOR GRANTSâGrants under this section shall be
APPENDIX A 289 made on such conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. SEC. 604. UNDERGRADUATE INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAMS. (a) INCENTIVES FOR THE CREATION OF NEW PROGRAMS AND THE STRENGTHENING OF EXISTING PROGRAMS IN UNDER- GRADUATE INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAMSâ AUTHORITYâThe Secretary is authorized to make grants to (1) institutions of higher education, combinations of such institutions, or partnerships between nonprofit educational organizations and institu- tions of higher education, to assist such institutions, combinations or partnerships in planning, developing, and carrying out programs to improve undergraduate instruction in international studies and foreign languages. Such grants shall be awarded to institutions, combinations or partnerships seeking to create new programs or to strengthen exist- ing programs in foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields. USE OF FUNDSâGrants made under this section may be used for (2) Federal share of the cost of projects and activities which are an integral part of such a program, such asâ planning for the development and expansion of undergraduate (A) programs in international studies and foreign languages; (B) teaching, research, curriculum development, faculty train- ing in the United States or abroad, and other related activities, includingâ the expansion of library and teaching resources; and (i) preservice and inservice teacher training; (ii) expansion of opportunities for learning foreign languages, in- (C) cluding less commonly taught languages; programs under which foreign teachers and scholars may visit (D) institutions as visiting faculty; programs designed to develop or enhance linkages between 2- (E) and 4-year institutions of higher education, or baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate programs or institutions;
290 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES the development of undergraduate educational programsâ (F) in locations abroad where such opportunities are not other- (i) wise available or that serve students for whom such opportuni- ties are not otherwise available; and that provide courses that are closely related to on-campus (ii) foreign language and international curricula; the integration of new and continuing education abroad oppor- (G) tunities for undergraduate students into curricula of specific degree programs; (H) the development of model programs to enrich or enhance the effectiveness of educational programs abroad, including predepar- ture and postreturn programs, and the integration of educational programs abroad into the curriculum of the home institution; the development of programs designed to integrate professional (I) and technical education with foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields; the establishment of linkages overseas with institutions of higher (J) education and organizations that contribute to the educational programs assisted under this subsection; the conduct of summer institutes in foreign area, foreign lan- (K) guage, and other international fields to provide faculty and cur- riculum development, including the integration of professional and technical education with foreign area and other international stud- ies, and to provide foreign area and other international knowledge or skills to government personnel or private sector professionals in international activities; the development of partnerships betweenâ (L) institutions of higher education; and (i) the private sector, government, or elementary and second- (ii) ary education institutions, in order to enhance international knowledge and skills; and (M) the use of innovative technology to increase access to interna- tional education programs. NON-FEDERAL SHAREâThe non-Federal share of the cost of the (3) programs assisted under this subsectionâ may be provided in cash from the private sector corporations (A)
APPENDIX A 291 or foundations in an amount equal to one-third of the total cost of the programs assisted under this section; or may be provided as an in-cash or in-kind contribution from (B) institutional and noninstitutional funds, including State and private sector corporation or foundation contributions, equal to one-half of the total cost of the programs assisted under this section. SPECIAL RULEâThe Secretary may waive or reduce the required (4) non-Federal share for institutions thatâ are eligible to receive assistance under part A or B of title III or (A) under title V; and have submitted a grant application under this section. (B) PRIORITYâIn awarding grants under this section, the Secretary (5) shall give priority to applications from institutions of higher education, combinations or partnerships that require entering students to have successfully completed at least 2 years of secondary school foreign language instruction or that require each graduating student to earn 2 years of postsecondary credit in a foreign language (or have demon- strated equivalent competence in the foreign language) or, in the case of a 2-year degree granting institution, offer 2 years of postsecondary credit in a foreign language. GRANT CONDITIONSâGrants under this subsection shall be (6) made on such conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out this subsection. APPLICATIONâEach application for assistance under this subsec- (7) tion shall includeâ evidence that the applicant has conducted extensive planning (A) prior to submitting the application; an assurance that the faculty and administrators of all relevant (B) departments and programs served by the applicant are involved in ongoing collaboration with regard to achieving the stated objec- tives of the application; an assurance that students at the applicant institutions, as ap- (C) propriate, will have equal access to, and derive benefits from, the program assisted under this subsection; and an assurance that each institution, combination or partnership (D) will use the Federal assistance provided under this subsection to supplement and not supplant non-Federal funds the institution
292 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES expends for programs to improve undergraduate instruction in international studies and foreign languages. EVALUATIONâThe Secretary may establish requirements for pro- (8) gram evaluations and require grant recipients to submit annual reports that evaluate the progress and performance of students participating in programs assisted under this subsection. (b) PROGRAMS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCEâThe Secretary may also award grants to public and private nonprofit agencies and organiza- tions, including professional and scholarly associations, whenever the Secre- tary determines such grants will make an especially significant contribution to improving undergraduate international studies and foreign language programs. (c) FUNDING SUPPORTâThe Secretary may use not more than 10 per- cent of the total amount appropriated for this part for carrying out the purposes of this section. SEC. 605. RESEARCH; STUDIES; ANNUAL REPORT. (a) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIESâThe Secretary may, directly or through grants or contracts, conduct research and studies that contribute to achiev- ing the purposes of this part. Such research and studies may includeâ studies and surveys to determine needs for increased or improved (1) instruction in foreign language, area studies, or other international fields, including the demand for foreign language, area, and other inter- national specialists in government, education, and the private sector; studies and surveys to assess the utilization of graduates of pro- (2) grams supported under this title by governmental, educational, and private sector organizations and other studies assessing the outcomes and effectiveness of programs so supported; evaluation of the extent to which programs assisted under this title (3) that address national needs would not otherwise be offered; comparative studies of the effectiveness of strategies to provide (4) international capabilities at institutions of higher education; research on more effective methods of providing instruction and (5) achieving competency in foreign languages, area studies, or other in- ternational fields; the development and publication of specialized materials for use (6)
APPENDIX A 293 in foreign language, area studies, and other international fields, or for training foreign language, area, and other international specialists; studies and surveys of the uses of technology in foreign language, (7) area studies, and international studies programs; studies and evaluations of effective practices in the dissemination (8) of international information, materials, research, teaching strategies, and testing techniques throughout the education community, including elementary and secondary schools; and the application of performance tests and standards across all areas (9) of foreign language instruction and classroom use. (b) ANNUAL REPORTâThe Secretary shall prepare, publish, and an- nounce an annual report listing the books and research materials produced with assistance under this section. SEC. 606. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND COOPERATION FOR FOREIGN INFORMATION ACCESS. (a) AUTHORITYâThe Secretary is authorized to make grants to institu- tions of higher education, public or nonprofit private libraries, or consortia of such institutions or libraries, to develop innovative techniques or pro- grams using new electronic technologies to collect, organize, preserve, and widely disseminate information on world regions and countries other than the United States that address our Nationâs teaching and research needs in international education and foreign languages. (b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIESâGrants under this section may be usedâ to facilitate access to or preserve foreign information resources in (1) print or electronic forms; to develop new means of immediate, full-text document delivery for (2) information and scholarship from abroad; to develop new means of shared electronic access to international (3) data; to support collaborative projects of indexing, cataloging, and other (4) means of bibliographic access for scholars to important research mate- rials published or distributed outside the United States; to develop methods for the wide dissemination of resources written (5) in non-Roman language alphabets;
294 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES to assist teachers of less commonly taught languages in acquiring, (6) via electronic and other means, materials suitable for classroom use; and to promote collaborative technology based projects in foreign lan- (7) guages, area studies, and international studies among grant recipients under this title. (c) APPLICATIONâEach institution or consortium desiring a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information and assurances as the Secretary may reasonably require. (d) MATCH REQUIREDâThe Federal share of the total cost of carrying out a program supported by a grant under this section shall not be more than 66 2/3 percent. The non-Federal share of such cost may be provided either in-kind or in cash, and may include contributions from private sector corporations or foundations. SEC. 607. SELECTION OF CERTAIN GRANT RECIPIENTS. (a) COMPETITIVE GRANTSâThe Secretary shall award grants under section 602 competitively on the basis of criteria that separately, but not less rigorously, evaluates the applications for comprehensive and undergraduate language and area centers and programs. (b) SELECTION CRITERIAâThe Secretary shall set criteria for grants awarded under section 602 by which a determination of excellence shall be made to meet the differing objectives of graduate and undergraduate institutions. (c) EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF GRANTSâThe Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, award grants under this part (other than section 602) in such manner as to achieve an equitable distribution of the grant funds throughout the United States, based on the merit of a proposal as determined pursuant to a peer review process involving broadly representa- tive professionals. SEC. 608. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN FUNDS. (a) SELECTION CRITERIAâThe Secretary shall make excellence the cri- terion for selection of grants awarded under section 602. (b) EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTIONâTo the extent practicable and consis- tent with the criterion of excellence, the Secretary shall award grants under
APPENDIX A 295 this part (other than section 602) in such a manner as will achieve an equi- table distribution of funds throughout the United States. (c) SUPPORT FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATIONâThe Secretary shall also award grants under this part in such manner as to ensure that an appropriate portion of the funds appropriated for this part (as determined by the Secretary) are used to support undergraduate education. SEC. 609. AMERICAN OVERSEAS RESEARCH CENTERS. (a) CENTERS AUTHORIZEDâThe Secretary is authorized to make grants to and enter into contracts with any American overseas research center that is a consortium of institutions of higher education (hereafter in this section referred to as a `centerâ) to enable such center to promote postgraduate research, exchanges and area studies. (b) USE OF GRANTSâGrants made and contracts entered into pursuant to this section may be used to pay all or a portion of the cost of establishing or operating a center or program, includingâ the cost of faculty and staff stipends and salaries; (1) the cost of faculty, staff, and student travel; (2) the cost of the operation and maintenance of overseas facilities; (3) the cost of teaching and research materials; (4) the cost of acquisition, maintenance, and preservation of library (5) collections; the cost of bringing visiting scholars and faculty to a center to teach (6) or to conduct research; the cost of organizing and managing conferences; and (7) the cost of publication and dissemination of material for the schol- (8) arly and general public. (c) LIMITATIONâThe Secretary shall only award grants to and enter into contracts with centers under this section thatâ receive more than 50 percent of their funding from public or private (1) United States sources; have a permanent presence in the country in which the center is (2) located; and are organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal (3)
296 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES Revenue Code of 1986 which are exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code. (d) DEVELOPMENT GRANTSâThe Secretary is authorized to make grants for the establishment of new centers. The grants may be used to fund activities that, within 1 year, will result in the creation of a center described in subsection (c). SEC. 610. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part $80,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years. PART BâBUSINESS AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM FINDINGS AND PURPOSES SEC. 611. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES (a) FINDINGSâThe Congress finds thatâ the future economic welfare of the United States will depend sub- (1) stantially on increasing international skills in the business community and creating an awareness among the American public of the interna- tionalization of our economy; concerted efforts are necessary to engage business schools, language (2) and area study programs, public and private sector organizations, and United States business in a mutually productive relationship which benefits the Nationâs future economic interest; few linkages presently exist between the manpower and informa- (3) tion needs of United States business and the international education, language training and research capacities of institutions of higher edu- cation in the United States, and public and private organizations; and organizations such as world trade councils, world trade clubs, (4) chambers of commerce and State departments of commerce are not adequately used to link universities and business for joint venture ex- ploration and program development. (b) PURPOSESâIt is the purpose of this partâ â Parts B, C, and D of Title VI are from the 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act, P.L. 102-325, as amended in 1998 (P.L. 105-244).
APPENDIX A 297 to enhance the broad objective of this Act by increasing and promot- (1) ing the Nationâs capacity for international understanding and economic enterprise through the provision of suitable international education and training for business personnel in various stages of professional development; and to promote institutional and noninstitutional educational and train- (2) ing activities that will contribute to the ability of United States business to prosper in an international economy. SEC 612. CENTERS FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS EDUCATION. (a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.â IN GENERAL â The Secretary is authorized to make grants to in- (1) stitutions of higher education, or combinations of such institutions, to pay the Federal share of the cost of planning, establishing and operating centers for international business education whichâ will be national resources for the teaching of improved busi- (A) ness techniques, strategies, and methodologies which emphasize the international context in which business is transacted; will provide instruction in critical foreign languages and inter- (B) national fields needed to provide understanding of the cultures and customs of United States trading partners; and will provide research and training in the international aspects (C) of trade commerce, and other fields of study. SPECIAL RULEâIn addition to providing training to students en- (2) rolled in the institution of higher education in which a center is located, such centers shall serve as regional resources to businesses proximately located by offering programs and providing research designed to meet the international training needs of such businesses. Such centers shall also serve other faculty, students, and institutions of higher education located within their region. (b) AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES.âEach grant under this section may be used to pay the Federal share of the cost of planning, establishing or operating a center, including the cost ofâ (1) faculty and staff travel in foreign areas, regions, or countries; (2) teaching and research materials;
298 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES (3) curriculum planning and development; (4) bringing visitor scholars and faculty to the center to teach or to conduct research; and (5) training and improvement of the staff, for the purpose of, and subject to such conditions as the Secretary finds necessary for carrying out the objectives of this section. (c) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.â MANDATORY ACTIVITIES.âProgram and activities to be con- (1) ducted by centers assisted under this section shall includeâ (A) interdisciplinary programs which incorporate foreign lan- guage and international studies and training into business, finance, management communications systems, and other professional curricula; (B) interdisciplinary programs which provide business, finance, management communication systems, and other professional train- ing for foreign language and international studies faculty and de- gree candidates; (C) programs, such as intensive language programs, available to members of the business community and other professionals which are designed to develop or enhance their international skills, aware- ness, and expertise; (D) collaborative programs, activities, or research involving other institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, profes- sional associations, businesses, firms, or combinations thereof, to promote the development of international skills, awareness, and expertise among current and prospective members of the business community and other professionals; research designed to strengthen and improve the international (E) aspects of business and professional education and to promote integrated curricula; and research designed to promote the international competitiveness (F) of American businesses and firms, including those not currently active in international trade. PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES.âPrograms and activities to be con- (2) ducted by centers assisted under this section may includeâ the establishment of overseas internship programs for students (A) and faculty designed to provide training and experience in inter-
APPENDIX A 299 national business activities, except that no Federal funds provided under this section maybe used to pay wages or stipends to any participant who is engaged in compensated employment as part of an internship program; the establishment of linkages overseas with institution of higher (B) education and other organizations that contribute to the educa- tional objectives of this section; summer institutes in international business, foreign area studies, (C) foreign language studies and other international studies designed to carry out the purposes of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; the development of opportunities for business students to study (D) abroad in locations which are important to the existing and future economic well-being of the United States; outreach activities or consortia with business programs located (E) at other institutions of higher education for the purpose of provid- ing expertise regarding the internationalization of such programs, such as assistance in research, curriculum development, faculty development, or educational exchange programs; and other eligible activities prescribed by the Secretary. (F) (d) ADVISORY COUNCILâ ESTABLISHMENT-In order to be eligible for assistance under this (1) section, an institution of higher education, or combination of such in- stitutions, shall establish a center advisory council which will conduct extensive planning prior to the establishment of a center concerning the scope of the centerâs activities and the design of its programs. MEMBERSHIP ON ADVISORY COUNCILâThe center advisory (2) council shall includeâ one representative of an administrative department or office of (A) the institution of higher education; one faculty representative of the business or management school (B) or department of such institution; one faculty representative of the international studies or foreign (C) language school or department of such institution; (D) one faculty representative of another professional school or department of such institution as appropriate;
300 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES one or more representative of local or regional businesses or (E) firms; one representative appointed by the Governor of the State in (F) which the institution of higher education is located whose normal responsibilities include official oversight or involvement in State- sponsored trade-related activities or programs; and (G) such other individuals as the institution of higher education deems appropriate such as a representative of a community college in the region served by the center. MEETINGS --In addition to the initial planning activities required (3) under subsection (d)(1), the center advisory council shall meet not less than once each year after the establishment of the center to assess and advise on the programs and activities conducted by the center. (e) GRANT DURATION; FEDERAL SHAREâ DURATION OF GRANTSâThe Secretary shall make grants under (1) this section for a minimum of 3 years unless the Secretary determines that the provision of grants of shorter duration is necessary to carry out the objectives of this section. FEDERAL SHARE.âThe Federal share of the cost of planning, (2) establishing and operating centers under this section shall beâ (A) not more than 90 percent for the first year in which Federal funds are received; not more than 70 percent for the second such year and (B) not more than 50 percent for the third such year and for each (C) such year thereafter. NON-FEDERAL SHARE.-The non-Federal share of the cost of (3) planning, establishing, and operating centers under this section may be provided either in cash or in-kind. WAIVER OF NON FEDERAL SHARE. --In the case of an institu- (4) tion of higher education receiving a grant under this part and conduct- ing outreach or consortia activities with another institution of higher education in accordance with section 612(c)(2)E, the Secretary may waive a portion of the requirements for the non-Federal share required in paragraph (2) equal to the amount provided by the institution of higher education receiving such grant to such other institution of higher education for carrying out such outreach or consortia activities. Any
APPENDIX A 301 such waiver shall be subject to such terms and conditions, as the Secre- tary deems necessary for carrying out the purposes of this section. (f) GRANT CONDITIONS.âGrants under this section shall be made on such conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the objectives of this section. Such conditions shall includeâ evidence that the institution of higher education, or combination of (1) such institutions, will conduct extensive planning prior to the establish- ment of a center concerning the scope of the centerâs activities and the design of its programs in accordance with subsection(d)(1); assurance of ongoing collaboration in the establishment and op- (2) eration of the center by faculty of the business, management, foreign language, international studies, professional international affairs, and other professional schools or departments, as appropriate; assurance that the education and training programs of the center (3) will be open to students concentrating in each of these respective areas, as appropriate; and assurance that the institution of higher education, or combination (4) of such institutions, will use the assistance provided under this section to supplement and not to supplant activities conducted by institutions of higher education described in subsection (c)(1). SEC. 613 EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS (a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.âThe Secretary shall make grants to, and enter into contracts with, institutions of higher education to pay the Federal share of the cost of programs designed to promote linkages between such institutions and the American business community engaged in international economic activity. Each program assisted under this part shall both enhance the international academic programs of institutions of higher education and provide appropriate services to the business community which will expand its capacity to engage in commerce abroad. (b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.âEligible activities to be conducted by institutions of higher education under this section shall include, innovation and improvement in international education curricula to (1) serve the needs of the business community, including development of new programs for nontraditional, mid-career, or part-time students; development of programs to inform the public of increasing inter- (2)
302 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES national economic interdependence and the role of American business within the international economic system; internationalization of curricula at the junior and community col- (3) lege level, and at undergraduate and graduate schools of business; development of areas studies programs and interdisciplinary inter- (4) national programs; establishment of export education programs through cooperative (5) arrangements with regional and world trade centers and councils, and with bilateral and multilateral trade associations; research for and development of specialized teaching materials, (6) including language materials, and facilities appropriate to business- oriented students; establishment of student and faculty fellowships and internships for (7) training and education in international business activities; development of opportunities for junior business and other profes- (8) sional school faculty to acquire or strengthen international skills and perspectives; development of research programs on issues of common interest to (9) institutions of higher education and private sector organizations and associations engaged in or promoting international economic activity; (10) the establishment of internships overseas to enable foreign lan- guage students to develop their foreign language skills and knowledge of foreign cultures and societies. (11) the establishment of linkages overseas with institutions of higher education and organizations that contribute to the educational objec- tives of this section; and (12) summer institutes in international business, foreign area and other international studies designed to carry out the purposes of this section. (c) APPLICATIONS.âNo grant may be made and no contact may be en- tered into under the provisions of this part unless an institution of higher education submits an application at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may reasonably require. Each such application shall be accom- panied by a copy of the agreement entered into by the institution of higher education with a business enterprise, trade organization or association en- gaged in international economic activity, or a combination or consortium of such enterprises, organizations or associations, for the purpose of estab-
APPENDIX A 303 lishing, developing, improving or expanding activities eligible for assistance under subsection (b) of this section. Each such application shall contain assurances that the institution of higher education will use the assistance provided under this part to supplement and not to supplant activities con- ducted by institutions of higher education described in subsection (b). (d) FEDERAL SHARE.âThe Federal share under this part for each fiscal year shall not exceed 50 per centum of the cost of such program. SEC. 614. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. (a) CENTERS FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS EDUCATION.âThere are authorized to be appropriated $11,000,000 for the fiscal year 1993 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years to carry out the provisions of section 612. (b) EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.âThere are authorized to be appropriated $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, and such sums as may be necessary for the 4 succeeding fiscal years, to carry out the provisions of section 613. PART CâINSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY SEC. 621. MINORITY FOREIGN SERVICE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.âThe Secretary is authorized to award a grant, on a competitive basis, to an eligible recipient to enable such recipient to establish an Institute for International Public Policy (hereafter in this part referred to as the âInstituteâ). The Institute shall conduct a program to sig- nificantly increase the numbers of African Americans and other underrepre- sented minorities in the international service, including private international voluntary organizations and the foreign service of the United States. Such program shall include a program for such students to study abroad in their junior year, fellowships for graduate study, internships, intensive academic programs such as summer institutes, or intensive language training. (b) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE RECIPIENT.â IN GENERAL.âFor the purpose of this part, the term âeligible (1) recipientâ means a consortium consisting of 1 or more of the following entities:
304 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES An institution eligible for assistance under part B of title I11 of (A) this Act. (B) An institution of higher education which serves substantial numbers of African American or other underrepresented minority students. An institution of higher education with programs in training (C) foreign service professionals. HOST INSTITUTION.-Each eligible recipient receiving a grant (2) under this section shall designate an institution of higher education as the host institution for the Institute. (c) APPLICATION.âEach eligible recipient desiring a grant under this section shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and ac- companied by such information as the Secretary may reasonably require. (d) DURATION.âGrants made pursuant to this section shall be awarded for a period not to exceed 5 years. (e) MATCH REQUIRED.âThe eligible recipient of a grant under this section shall contribute to the conduct of the program supported by the grant an amount from non-Federal sources equal to at least one-fourth the amount of the grant, which contribution may be in cash or in kind. SEC. 622. JUNIOR YEAR ABROAD PROGRAM. (a) PROGRAM AUTHORITY.âThe Institute shall conduct, by grant or contract, a junior year abroad program. The junior year abroad program shall be open to eligible students at institutions of higher education, includ- ing historically Black colleges and universities as defined in section 322 of this Act, tribally controlled Indian community colleges as defined in the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978, and other institutions of higher education with significant minority student popula- tions. Eligible student expenses shall be shared by the Institute and the institution at which the student is in attendance. Each student may spend not more than 9 months abroad in a program of academic study, as well as social, familial and political interactions designed to foster an understand- ing of and familiarity with the language, culture, economics and governance of the host country. (b) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE STUDENT.âFor the purpose of this section, the term âeligible studentâ means a student that isâ
APPENDIX A 305 enrolled full-time in a baccalaureate degree program at an institu- (1) tion of higher education; and entering the third year of study at an institution of higher educa- (2) tion which nominates such student for participation in the junior year abroad program. (c) SPECIAL RULE.âAn institution of higher education desiring to send a student on the junior year abroad program shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Institute under which such institution of higher education agrees toâ provide the requisite academic preparation for students participat- (1) ing in the junior year abroad or internship programs; pay one-half the cost of each student it nominates for participation (2) in the junior year abroad program; and meet such other requirements as the Secretary may from time to (3) time, by regulation, reasonably require. SEC. 623. MASTERS DEGREE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. The Institute shall provide, in cooperation with the other members partici- pating in the eligible recipient consortium, a program of study leading to a masters degree in international relations. The masters degree program designed by the consortia shall be reviewed and approved by the Secretary. The Institute may grant fellowships in an amount not to exceed the level of support comparable to that provided by the National Science Foundation graduate fellowships, except such amount shall be adjusted as necessary so as not to exceed the fellowâs demonstrated level of need according to measurement of need approved by the Secretary. A fellowship recipient shall agree to undertake full-time study and to enter the international service (in- cluding work with private international voluntary organizations) or foreign service of the United States. SEC. 624. INTERNSHIPS The Institute shall enter into agreements with historically Black colleges and universities as defined in section 322 of this Act, tribally controlled Indian community colleges as defined in the Tribally Controlled Community Col- lege Assistance Act of 1978, other institutions of higher education with signiticant numbers of minority students, and institutions of higher educa- tion with programs in training foreign service professionals, to provide
306 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES academic year internships during the junior and senior year and summer internships following the sophomore and junior academic years, by work placements with an international voluntary or government organizations or agencies, including the Agency for International Development, the United States Information Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the National Security Council, the Organization of American States, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Department of State, Office of the United States Trade Representative, the World Bank, and the United Nations. SEC. 625. REPORT. The Institute shall annually prepare a report on the activities of the Institute and shall submit such report to the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of State. SEC. 626. GIFTS AND DONATIONS. The Institute is authorized to receive money and other property donated, bequeathed, or devised to the Institute with or without a condition of re- striction, for the purpose of providing financial support for the fellowshi s or underwriting the cost of the Junior Year Abroad Program. All funds or property given, devised, or bequeathed shall be retained in a separate account, and an accounting of those funds and property shall be included in the annual report described in section 625. SEC. 627. AUTHORIZATION. There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1993 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years to carry out this part. PART DâGENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 631. DEFINITIONS. (a) DEFINITIONS.âAs used in this titleâ the term âarea studiesâ means a program for comprehensive study (1) of the aspects of a society or societies, including study of its history, culture, economy, politics, international relations and languages;
APPENDIX A 307 the term âinternational businessâ means profit-oriented business (2) relationships conducted across national boundaries and includes activi- ties such as the buying and selling of goods, investments in industries, the licensing of processes, patents and trademarks, and the supply of services; the term âexport educationâ means educating, teaching and training (3) to provide general knowledge and specific skills pertinent to the sell- ing of goods and services to other countries, including knowledge of market conditions, financial arrangements, laws, and procedures; the term âinternationalization of curriculaâ means the incorpora- (4) tion of international or comparative perspectives in existing courses of study or the addition of new components to the curricula to provide an international context for American business education; the term âcomprehensive language and area centerâ means an ad- (5) ministrative unit of a university that contributes significantly to the national interest in advance research and scholarship, employs a criti- cal mass of scholars in diverse disciplines related to a geographic con- centration, offers intensive language training in languages of its area specialization, maintains important library collections related to the area, and makes training available in language and area studies to a graduate, postgraduate, and undergraduate clientele; and the term âundergraduate language and area centerâ means an admin- (6) istrative unit of an institution of higher education, including but not limited to 4-year colleges, that contributes significantly to the national interest through the education and training of students who matriculate into advanced language and area studies programs, professional school programs, or incorporate substantial international and foreign lan- guage content into baccalaureate degree programs, engages in research, curriculum development and community outreach activities designed to broaden international and foreign language knowledge, employs fac- ulty with strong language, area, and international studies credentials, maintains library holdings, including basic reference works, journals, and works in translation, and makes training available predominantly to undergraduate students; the term âcritical languagesâ means each of the languages contained (7) in the list of critical languages designated by the Secretary pursuant to section 212(d) of the Education for Economic Security Act (50 Fed. Reg.149, 31413), except that, in the implementation of this definition, the Secretary may set priorities according to the purposes of this title; and
308 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES the term âinstitution of higher educationâ means, in addition to (8) institutions which meet the definition of section 1201(a) of this Act, institutions which meet the requirements of section 1201(a) of this Act except that (1) they are not located in the United States, and (2) they apply for assistance under this title in consortia with institutions which meet the definition of 1201(a) of this Act. (b) SPECIAL CONDITIONS.âAll references to individuals or organiza- tions, unless the context otherwise requires, mean individuals who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States or organizations which are organized or incorporated in the United States. SEC. 632. PRESERVATION OF PRE-1992 PROGRAMS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, amendments to this title establishing new programs or expanding existing programs enacted pursu- ant to the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 shall not be funded in fiscal year 1993, or the 4 succeeding fiscal years, unless and until Congress enacts appropriations for programs under this title enacted prior to such Amendments at a level no less than the level of funding in effect for such preexisting programs for fiscal year 1992.