From: Miriam A. Kazanjian
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is intended for American members of the list.
We apologize tor any inconvenience to other list members. The following
message requests information regarding American "Title VI" and U.S.
Department of Education Fulbright programs. (NOTE: This is not one of
the Fulbright programs that brings foreign scholars and students to the
U.S.) If you have direct information or experiences with these programs
and can answer some or all of the following questions, please do so.
Accurate information on the impact of these programs is needed, and while
a broad response is desirable, PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE THIS SURVEY TO
OTHERS WITHOUT FIRST CONTACTING MS. KAZANJIAN.
Please return your surveys directly to Ms. Kazanjian.
Thank you very much.
Philip C. Brown
Editor, H-Japan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FROM: Miriam A. Kazanjian
Coalition for International Education
RE: Title VI/Fulbright-Hays Survey
====================================
A recent meeting with Congressional staff has underscored the
importance of a strong Coalition response to the concerns about
Title VI and Fulbright-Hays expressed in the House Appropriations
Committee's Report on the FY 1996 Appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, HHS and Education. Funding for FY 1997, as
well as maintaining these programs in the future will depend on a
strong community response.
As you recall, in the midst of a budget cutting frenzy last year,
these programs were continued in the House of Representatives
primarily because of support from House Subcommittee on Labor, HHS
and Education Appropriations Chairman John Porter (R-Ill) and
Ranking Minority Member David Obey (D-WIS), who feel foreign
languages and international education are priorities for the
nation. Their support is up against a backdrop of tough questions
from new, more conservative Members about education programs in
general, and the probable need to cut and eliminate further in the
FY 1997 appropriations this year. The fact is, many in Congress
are looking to slow down the decades of growth in federal education
programs. The subcommittee leadership may find it increasingly
difficult to sustain their support without answers for Title
VI and Fulbright-Hays to basic questions being asked of all
education programs, questions which appear to start from a
zero-base premise.
The Department of Education is aware of the need for a strong
response to the House committee's concerns, and is preparing
information for both their FY 1997 budget justifications to the
Congress and for their testimony before the House Subcommittee on
Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations now scheduled for early
May.
In the meantime, Congressional staff has urged the Coalition to
submit testimony to the House subcommittee anytime before the
hearings are completed in mid-May. With that end in mind, below is
a survey based on questions from Congressional staff, for which we
need local, institutional perspectives. Several Coalition
campus-based members have commented upon and revised these
survey questions. I realize the survey may seem long, but the time
spent in answering the questions will help ensure the survival of
these programs. Due to the variety of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays
programs, respondents should not feel obliged to answer every
question, but should feel free to select questions most relevant to
their programs, or under section III-C to add perspectives on
programs not specifically mentioned.
Responses are requested by e-mail or regular mail to my address
listed below, no later than April 1. Many thanks for your help.
====================================
HEA-TITLE VI AND FULBRIGHT-HAYS SURVEY
I. Please state your name, title, institution, phone numbers,
mailing and e-mail addresses.
II. Indicate from which of the following programs you have
received grants:
Title VI:
___National Resource Centers (NRCs)
___Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS)
___Language Resource Centers (LRCs)
___Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Languages
___International Research and Studies
___Foreign Periodicals and Other Research Materials
___American Overseas Research Centers (AORC)
___Business and International Education (BIE)
___Centers for International Business Education and Research
(CIBERs)
___Institute for International Public Policy (IIPP)
Fulbright-Hays:
___Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)
___Faculty Research Abroad (FRA)
___Group Projects Abroad
___Seminars Abroad
III. The Coalition is in need of institutional perspectives on a
number of issues. Please provide statistical, anecdotal or other
information for the questions below. If you are aware of any
surveys/studies which help make the point, please so indicate.
Please also note that the terminology "foreign language, area and
international studies" is used generically and is intended
to include all areas funded under Title VI and Fulbright-Hays.
A. National Need and Responsibility
Title VI and Fulbright-Hays funding has been available for over 30
years, initiated in response to Cold War needs. We have been
challenged to show why it is critical for the nation that these
programs be continued to address perhaps different and greater
needs in the post-Cold War era.
1. From your perspective, what are the national needs in the
post-Cold War era being addressed by Title VI and Fulbright-Hays
programs? For example, is there increasing demand and/or a
shortage of people with foreign language, area or other
international expertise and if so, do you know of data or other
evidence to demonstrate this?
2. What is the imperative for a continued federal role? Why can't
universities continue the mission on their own, with perhaps some
help from other sectors such as state government, business and
foundations?
3. Certain grants under Title VI have been continued to the same
institutions for a long time. What is the justification for this
historical funding? Is there a point at which certain grants
should be considered to have achieved their purpose and terminated?
4. What would be the immediate impact on your foreign language,
area and international studies programs if Title VI and
Fulbright-Hays funds were eliminated, and why? Would your program
or center be eliminated? What would be left of your foreign
languages, area or international studies program after five years
without Title VI? Feel free to specify potential impact on
any or all of the following:
foreign language instruction (how many and what less
commonly-taught languages, LCTLs, would no longer be taught, and
what might be the national security implications?)
instruction about your world area or international business or
professional international affairs courses
number of students pursuing the study of foreign languages and
international studies
outreach activities
funds coming from other sources
library resources
peration of your center or program
services to students and faculty
interdisciplinary activities, including curriculum development
research
B. Program Structure
Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs take a combined institutional
and student/faculty assistance approach. In other words, various
types of funding are provided for building institutional capacity
or strength at the undergraduate and graduate levels (NRC, CIBER,
LRC, AORC, undergraduate programs, etc.), as well as for
financially enabling students and faculty to engage in advanced
study (FLAS, DDRA, FRA).
1. Is the institutional capacity-building approach (programs other
than student or faculty assistance) necessary to continue and if
so, why? If your answer is yes, are there areas of need in
institutional capacity-building that Title VI and Fulbright-Hays
programs DO NOT now address and for which there is an appropriate
federal role? If so, what are they?
2. Besides the Title VI/Fulbright student and faculty financial
assistance programs (FLAS, DDRA, FRA), are there any other FEDERAL
student or faculty assistance programs which serve these needs? If
so, what are they? Without federal funding, is there any other
funding available for student and/or faculty financial assistance
for these purposes?
3. Can the federal loan programs be wholly relied upon to serve
student and faculty financial assistance needs in this area instead
of grants, and if not, why?
4. Would strengthening our nation's international expertise be
better served by converting Title VI/Fulbright funding into a
wholly student assistance approach? If not, why?
C. Relevance and Outcomes
Questions have been raised about the ability of these small
programs to have an impact on national needs. We also are
challenged to show they are "relevant" to our national security and
economic well-being, and that there are beneficiaries other than
just the academic sector. The questions below focus on these
concerns. If the Title VI/Fulbright program you most work
with is not specified in questions 2-5, please feel free to add
your perspective on the impact that program has had on national
needs.
1. Please provide at least ONE example of how your Title
VI/Fulbright program or center assisted a federal, state or local
government agency or business in achieving a mission important to
the national interest or to the nation's economic well-being.
Responses to this question are very important.
Good examples might might show how an NRC or FLAS recipient
provided research, training and/or expertise to support the conduct
of U.S. foreign policy or defense, or a CIBER or BIE grant
recipient helped to internationalize a U.S. business, enhancing its
ability to penetrate and compete in an emerging international
market. An example given by Congressional staff: Last year the
U.S. Institute of Peace used the illustration of a paper on the
recent history of the Middle East conflict which had been written
under their auspices and which was carried by the U.S. negotiating
team to the Middle East as part of their background briefing
material. Congressional staff thought this was a good way of
showing how the Institute's work is relevant to current foreign
policy efforts of the U.S.
2. For the NRCs and CIBERs:
Where do your graduates typically go for employment?
On average per year, how many people from other education
institutions (K-12, institutions of higher education, including
community colleges), government agencies (local, state or federal)
and/or the private sector use the services of your center and which
services are in most demand? (please specify by sector and
activity)
Does your CIBER draw on the resources of language and area
expertise of NRCs? If so, how?
Does your NRC provide foreign language and area expertise to the
private sector? Please give an example.
How many/what proportion of your faculty have had FLAS, DDRA or
FRA awards?
3. For the undergraduate programs (both foreign
language/international studies and business), how many courses
developed with a Title VI grant have become a permanent part of
your curriculum? How many programs and/or faculty positions
initiated under a Title VI grant have become institutionalized? To
what extent have your outreach activities to the community led to
new linkages, for example between the business community and the
university? What have been the unanticipated positive results of
your Title VI grant?
4. For the LRCs, how many teachers
(elementary/secondary/postsecondary) have been reached through your
center's research and training programs? How many new language
teaching materials have been developed through your center,
particularly in the LCTLs?
5. For the Fulbright Seminars Abroad, Group Projects Abroad and
Faculty Research Abroad participants, how have curriculum materials
and teaching been impacted by your experience and new contacts made
abroad? What were other notable results from your research and
experience, such as publications or outreach activities?
====================================
Please return your response by APRIL 1, through e-mail or regular
mail to:
Miriam_Kazanjian@AAU.NCHE.EDU
or
Miriam A. Kazanjian
8600 16th Street, No. 808
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
-------------------------End H-Japan Message------------------------