“Language Leadership Seminar” Disseminating Best Practices Keith L. Wert Associate BILC Secretary for Program Assessment Director, Partner Language Training Center Europe Chair, Dept of Language Studies, College of International and Security Studies George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies

Directions What? Develop and conduct an Language Leadership Seminar to impart key issues in language training institution building to assist nations to meet NATO Force Goals Why? Because of a felicitous confluence of events: Recurrent themes from BILC Language Assessments US Defense Department Policy Guidance

Language Assessment History The assessments originated with a formal NATO International Staff request to the Chairman of the NATO Training Group to ask BILC to conduct “an assessment of the effectiveness (including cost –effectiveness) of national programs”.

Language Assessments Multilateral team review of language training structures Before Accession: Slovakia, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, After Accession: Czech Rep., Bulgaria, Romania IPAP countries (FYR) Macedonia, Georgia Assessment teams have consisted of professionals from Slovenia, Sweden, UK, and US. Level of Interest: Latvia: Deputy State Secretary Slovakia: Director of Military Education Macedonia: Deputy Chief of Defense Bulgaria: Deputy Chief of Staff Georgia: 1st Deputy Minister of Defense Romania: Head of MoD Human Resources

Why is this different from other assistance/cooperative efforts? Multilateral not bilateral Focused on policies and procedures: less on direct training advice Not focused on provision of labs and books Requires host country buy in: must be a cooperation Tries to build the institutions and overarching governance

Language Assessment Foci Development of a language policy        Integrating language policy into military personnel policies Development of a language training structure that meets the objectives of the language policy Establishing effective and efficient use of language training resources       - Appropriate emphasis on and balance between intensive and non intensive programs    - Ensuring resources are allocated in a transparent and ‘objective’ manner       - Effective and efficient language testing programs       - Transparent procedures for faculty professional development      - Harmonizing bilateral support for language training      - Development of Syllabi at STANAG 6001 Level 3

Analytical Process: Summary Objectives To review how the language policy fits with personnel policies. To see if the language training structure meets the policy objectives. To see if the structure can produce the required numbers of graduates at the required proficiency levels in a somewhat predictable manner.

1986: Coal mine canaries made redundant More than 200 canary birds are being phased out of Britain's mining pits, according to new plans by the government.

Some language structure canaries Language Policy (Personnel policies) Language resources allocation Language laboratories and self-access centers Testing policies and processes Syllabi standardization or how long does a student take to reach Level 1,2,3? Teachers contra management Management contra teachers Military language instruction Professional Development (transparency thereof) Intensive vs. non intensive language programs

Nine Countries: Overlapping Themes Why? Transient military and civilian policy leaders Equation of language training with driver training Lack of (civilian) specialist input into language policy formulation Transient language school leadership Focus on language testing pushing classroom issues and student progression to the side Language schools subordinated to the wrong entity

US Defense Department Policy Guidance 2007: US Army to Foreign Language Training Center Europe (FLTCE) : “Drop Dead” 1 Oct 2008: FLTCE transferred to Office of Secretary of Defense/Policy/Global Security Affairs/Partnership Strategy. Hence: Partner Language Training Center Europe (PLTCE)

US Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum: “The new organization will provide flexible language training for U.S personnel while offering English and strategic language instruction and expertise for NATO Allies and worldwide partners…”

So who cares? This authority gives PLTCE the authority and funding to expand activities, seminars and language classes. Before this activities were tolerated but on the periphery of the mission Now it is the core mission This authority aligns PLTCE activities with other USG programs that seek to advance NATO’s PAP-DIB initiatives. (As well as build the capacities of partner country militaries.) Nation building by any other name.

What’s New and Approved? English for ISAF Professional English Language Enhancement for ISAF HQ (Lead in to NATO School ISAF HQ pre deployment course) Mission related English for Operational Mentor and Liaison Team (OMLT) training at Hohenfels, Germany Languages for NATO and Partners Pashto, Persian-Farsi, Russian, Arabic (MSA, Iraqi, Sudanese, Maghrebi), French, Swahili, Hausa and Tamasheq. Advanced Language Testing Seminar Assistance to National Testing Programs Language Leadership Seminar

Language Leadership Seminar “Under Construction” Duration: 4-5 days Location: PLTCE in Garmisch, Germany Organization: Similar to the BILC Language Testing Seminar Use “BILC Assessment Outlines” Theme based Centered on “case studies” (Sanitized situations from language assessments) Review of actual published language policy documents from selected countries Review of minimum statistical data one should have Try to identify the unique nature of “military” language training systems Facilitators: From BILC community Attendees: Military and civilian officials involved in language training policies and schoolhouse management

Some themes / canaries Language Policy (Personnel policies) Language resources allocation Language laboratories and self-access centers Testing policies and processes Syllabi standardization or how long does a student take to reach Level 1,2,3? Teachers contra management Management contra teachers Military language instruction Professional Development (transparency thereof) Intensive vs. non intensive language programs These are the areas that came to mind as I prepared this presentation. There are more but we have the coffee break next.

Questions?