Team-taught courses provide another useful addition to a department's offerings--for example, a course on civilization and culture, or on contemporary society, taught by an FL faculty member and someone in the history department. Such interdisciplinary courses are by no means easy to put together or to teach but they can be very successful.
These are all ideas that have worked quite well for us, but this is certainly not an exclusive or prescriptive list. Nor do I want to suggest that we have no problems, either in the Virginia program or in Russian studies across the country. Enrollments are down in many institutions. If foreign languages are the most vulnerable part of the humanities curriculum as a whole, then Russian is probably the most vulnerable among them, certainly more vulnerable than the more traditional and better established languages.
In fact, until about twenty years ago Russian hardly existed at all as a language taught in the colleges, let alone the secondary schools, of this country. It is true that World War II and the Cold War aroused considerable interest in the Soviet Union, but, with very few exceptions, neither war had much impact on the American educational system. Appropriately enough it was the Russians themselves who obliged us to pay more attention to their language. The catalyst, of course, was sputnik , a new word that entered the language to symbolize both awareness of Soviet achievements and anxiety over an apparent failure of American science and technology to keep pace.
One important response to sputnik was the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958, which resulted in millions of dollars being poured into language and area studies programs. Among the so-called critical or strategic languages, Russian has benefited most from NDEA legislation. Twenty years later we now find that Russian is taught in practically every respectable college and university in the country. Major institutions have Russian departments, or even Slavic departments where not only Russian but other major languages such as Czech, Polish, or Serbo-Croatian are taught. There are now twenty-three doctoral programs in Slavic languages and literatures where only three or four existed prior to 1958. Fourteen Slavic area studies programs continue to receive federal support under NDEA Title VI, which also provides Foreign Language and Area Studies graduate fellowships to major Slavic programs. It should be noted that in awarding these fellowships preference is now given to students in the non-Russian Slavic and East European languages and in disciplines other than literature, history, economics, and political science, which are felt to have come of age at the graduate level.
It seems to me entirely proper that the traditional foreign languages should maintain their preeminence. However, long years of neglect of other major world languages can only be remedied in the short run by the sort of federal boost provided by NDEA, which has brought the American educational system more in line with the economic and political realities of the twentieth century. It is worth remembering that many of the so-called “smaller” languages are in fact spoken by hundreds of millions of people: Chinese, Russian, Hindi, Arabic. No one would suggest that what this country needs is a samovar in every kitchen, but clearly it is a matter of national interest that a language such as Russian should be made available in a substantial number of our schools and colleges.
The position of Russian is certainly much better than it was twenty years ago. However, the rather panicky reaction to sputnik brought with it some problems because it created a hothouse growth of Russian and East European programs that could only flourish, or in some cases survive, with constant financial support from outside sources. Some programs put down roots; others have begun to wither. It is obviously unhealthy and impractical for foreign language instruction to depend upon the inscrutable shifts of Soviet policy or the momentary shifts in the climate of international affairs. There still exists the danger under NDEA that some programs are obliged to balance on a seesaw of grant and detente; in other words, good news is bad news and vice versa.
We have a habit in this country of throwing money at problems. This leads to a sort of “greening of America” with a difference. What I mean is that federal assistance and private funding increased FL enrollments for a time, but all the while SAT scores were declining. This is a point we would do well to remember as we enter what may be a new era of federal funding for foreign language and area studies. One unexpected result of the Helsinki Accords has been to bring the importance of international studies to the attention of President Carter. Each signatory commits itself to “encourage the study of foreign languages and civilizations as an important means of expanding communication among peoples--for the strengthening of international cooperation.” Having signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United States finds itself in a rather embarrassing position since it needs to do a great deal more than it is currently doing to “encourage the study of foreign languages and civilizations.” In response chiefly to the actions of Representative Paul Simon of Illinois, the President has ordered the creation of a Presidential Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies, which should submit its report during 1978.
One encouraging difference between this renewed federal interest in foreign languages and that prompted by sputnik twenty years ago is tone. For example, it was significant that the former National Defense Foreign Language (NDFL) fellowships have been retitled Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships. In other words, “defense” is being removed from the title, and from the motivation behind offering the awards. It would seem that we feel less threatened militarily and have a more healthy understanding of the importance of foreign languages for our national well-being, even in a world at peace.
Whatever the recommendations of the Presidential Commission, it is already clear that foreign language instruction has the support of the recently installed U.S. Commissioner of Education, Ernest L. Boyer. Dr. Boyer, until last year a chancellor in the State University of New York system, has a strong professional background in international studies and a thorough understanding of their importance in the American educational system. His public comments on the problems and objectives of education at all levels have been most encouraging, particularly his speech at the annual meeting of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities last December. He was reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education (12 December 1977) to have stated his intention to “revitalize [federal] support of foreign-language and area-studies programs” and to give “a new priority” to internationalizing American education.
We should welcome this increased awareness at the upper levels of the federal government of what has come to be called “global perspectives.” Let us take advantage of the new favorable climate of opinion and the possible increase in federal funding to get “back to basics.” Foreign language instruction and international studies need to be strengthened at all levels, not simply at the college and university levels. We must devote increased attention to the elementary and secondary schools in order to effect a genuine change and improvement in the present situation.
1.3.2.H.L. MENCKEN used to tell the story of a state legislator who clinched his argument against a proposed allocation of funds for foreign language instruction by declaring proudly, “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me.” Funny perhaps, but it is hard to keep smiling when similar expressions of smug obscurantism continue to crop up with embarrassing frequency and in the most surprising places. The deputy superintendent for instruction in the Washington, D.C. system, James T. Guines, was quoted in the Washington Post (4 September 1977) as saying that a cut in the school budget meant that such luxuries as foreign language classes in elementary schools would be the first to go. After all, he explained, “Even if you go abroad now, you don't need a language. The dollar speaks louder than anything.”
A brief trip to Europe might assist Mr. Guines in acquiring a better appreciation of the value of foreign languages--and of the dollar. But before we become too self-righteous, we should remember that there is another side to this question. We may agree that foreign languages have intrinsic value, but that value will remain untapped unless and until it is transmitted correctly. Another Mencken anecdote may clarify the point. He recalled studying French for two years in high school and looking forward to his first visit to France; much to his dismay, he discovered that no one in Paris understood “high school French.”
Charity begins at home. We must put our own house in order. Foreign language instruction needs improvement at all levels, but the crux of our problem lies in the elementary and secondary schools. This is where languages should be taught, not in the colleges. I am convinced that the long-range solution to the plight of foreign languages in this country will come with improvement of instruction at the high school level and with coordination of an effective transition from high school to college. However, in the meantime we must face the situation as it is and do the best we can.
Our present prospects are, unfortunately, not very happy. There is no need to rehearse the litany of complaints, but it is worth reiterating that the plight of foreign languages reflects a larger problem that threatens the educational system as a whole. I am speaking of the continued decline in verbal and mathematical skills among young people, demonstrated by the drop in SAT scores over the past few years. To no one's surprise, a special commission charged with studying the matter attributed the lower scores to several factors, including too much television. My own feeling is that two important underlying causes are, or have been, a creeping anti-intellectualism in the public at large and a loss of confidence among teachers.
As a result of this fatal combination, many students receive high school diplomas that are not worth the paper they are written on. Large numbers of so-called graduates are functional illiterates, incapable of even balancing a checkbook. They can hardly read and write their own language, so what hope do they have of learning another? The gradual abandonment of the emphasis on the three R's has been encouraged by the “quick fix” mentality and the introduction of “innovative” ideas, whose chief purpose appears to be to persuade children that learning requires little or no effort. No one is suggesting that we return to the bad old days, but surely the pendulum has swung too far from Gradgrind to the Good Humor Man.
Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
