1. “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

2. 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

3. 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”.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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…”

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. Questions?