Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Title VI Fallout and FLAS: The Sustainability of Instruction for Less Commonly Taught Languages of the Global South

Wed, April 17, 3:15 to 4:45pm, Hyatt Regency, Floor: Bay (Level 1), Bayview B

Proposal

Title VI Fallout and FLAS: The Sustainability of Instruction for Less Commonly Taught Languages of the Global South

Relevance of topic, discussion of context:
The history of Title VI and the language and area studies programs that fall within the scope of National Resource Centers (NRCs) began with the launch of the Sputnik I and the advent of the Cold War, which was characterized by both international security threats and new technologies to counter those threats (U.S. Department of Education (DOE), Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), 2011). This increasingly globalizing climate increased the need for international expertise in less commonly taught languages (LCTLs), area and cultural studies to meet the needs of this changing geopolitical environment. In 1958, the need to build a corps of academically trained foreign language and international relations specialists impelled the U.S. Government to create Title VI, a part of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) which dedicates funding to build foreign language and area studies programs at U.S. universities. The goal of this program was to build a cadre of well-trained diplomats and international specialists who were of a sufficient caliber to meet U.S. national security needs. Before this act, there was insufficient quantity and quality of expertise to serve U.S. needs adequately:
“Prior to the passage of the act, few of the languages spoken by more than three-fourths of the world's population were being offered in the U.S. and not enough scholars were available to perform research in such languages or to teach them... Hindi, for example, was being studied by only twenty-three students in the U.S. in 1958.” (Hines, R., U.S. DOE, OPE, 2011).
In 2017, the U.S. DOE supported 114 NRCs that were all using federal grant funding to build capacity in world languages and global and area studies. In addition, there were 118 Centers that also received the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) grant to support student scholarships in Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs). For the past 60 years Title VI has largely received a broad swath of bipartisan support, despite threats to reduce funding for the program and ultimately cut the Title VI altogether. To bolster support for Title VI, proponents offered numerous adaptations, from expanding outreach beyond the university and into local communities, and channeling additional resources into k-12 teacher training and community college support. With every new administration, adjustments to funding and shifting priorities have been expected, launching reauthorizations that reflect the current environment and perspectives. Prior to the reauthorization of Title VI in 2018, the U.S. administration proposed legislation that posed additional risk to the continuation of Title VI, with a bill mandating the abolition of the DOE (nprED, 2017) and the Presidential Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2018 eliminating funding for Title VI and the NRCs that fall under its purview. Fortunately for the university recipients and their beneficiaries, the House Appropriations Subcommittee passed a bill that continued funding for Title VI for the 2017 fiscal year, and also authorized funding for the 2018-2022 cycle, allowing the Department of Education to issue new Requests for Proposals in June of 2018. Although the grant competition has since closed and awardees chosen, appropriations have been delayed and funding remains uncertain (NHA, 2017).
Yet, once the dust settled from the competition, there were other concerns that became readily apparent. The pool of NRC awardees had been reduced from 114 to 107, and the Centers awarded FLAS grants had decreased from 118 to 113. Although those reductions do not seem significant, the results left at least one Midwestern state without any funding support for languages from Latin America or Africa, leaving the languages of the Global South severely underfunded. Considering the current administration’s support for defunding the DOE and its programs, the question this project asks is, is the reduction of support for languages of the Global South a national trend, or is this phenomenon an isolated case, impacting only one state? In addition, given this new loss of funding, how can U.S. universities and their NRCs maintain and potentially grow their capacity to expand regional and global studies knowledge and teach critical LCTL skills without this critical financial support? With the global pace of change accelerating and interconnections between nation-states becoming ever more intricate, there is an increasing need for global citizens to possess a skillset that includes more language and area studies training - not less. Without the resources in place to maintain quality programs, the U.S. risks becoming ill-prepared for a globalizing world.
Method(s) of analysis:
The study proposes to employ geographic information system (GIS) methodology as the initial approach to gather, manage, and analyze data, specifically focusing on the spatial location of NRC and FLAS Centers over multiple grant cycles to highlight trends and determine gaps in LCTL funding. Using a case study approach, the project will also integrate qualitative data collection, by way of interviews with university faculty instructors in LCTLs and department heads, to gather information on the different strategies being employed to keep units operational and languages offered to students.
Findings and contribution to knowledge:
Although the data collection and reporting phase has begun, the results have not yet been analyzed. The researchers expect to find evidence of language programs being championed, and hope to identify the best practices used by these champions to sustain particular LCTLs to determine the applicability of those strategies to other LCTL languages under threat of no longer being offered. It is critical for our students to maintain language and areas studies training, and if there are successful strategies being used to preserve LCTL instruction, sharing those winning approaches would not only contribute to policy studies but also influence policy development in an era of waning support for federally-funded education programs.

Author