The Foreign Service Journal, April 2012

languages easily. For them, a FAST course could be all they need to master the proper use of the imparfait versus the passé compose and all the other wonders of French grammar, for in- stance. But what about everyone else? Lack of proficiency in the local lan- guage makes a job applicant less com- petitive. And those EFMs who do land jobs outside the mission will find it tough to function in a professional environment with limited fluency. Purchasing Parity There is no getting around the fact that it would be costly for FSI to give USAID EFMs the same access to lan- guage instruction as their State coun- terparts routinely receive. But what about other ways to offer them parity? Let us assume that a student with no previous French-language instruc- tion requires five contact hours a day for a period of 30 weeks to develop “3” level speaking and reading skills. An EFM who is new to the language can complete the eight-week FAST course at government expense, but he or she will still require approximately 22 weeks — 550 hours — of instruction to reach the “3” level. The Washington, D.C., area is home to many private language schools. But they generally charge $45-$50 per hour for one-on-one in- struction. At that rate, the cost for 550 hours of training comes to around $25,000. Even EFMs in the “1 per- cent” may find that trés cher! Let us further assume that one-on- one instruction at a reputable private language school will allow a motivated spouse or partner to learn the language faster. Even if they can cut the num- ber of hours in half, at $47 per hour the tuition bill for 225 hours of instruction still comes to more than $10,000. If the family member is lucky, the school will put him or her with another student at the same proficiency level, who has the same schedule and desire to learn the language, to form a semi- private or small group class. At ap- proximately $30 per hour each, a semi- private class for an EFM who wishes to attain the “3” level would cost $6,000. What about the post language pro- gram or local instructors? It is true that USAID EFMs can participate in post language programs. In addition, local instructors are generally less expensive than those in Washington. But unfor- tunately, post language programs are not designed or resourced to bring be- ginner students from the “0” or even the “1+” level to the “3” level quickly. A Glass Half Full? Let us assume that the FSO needs to learn French for his or her next post. The French Basic course at FSI lasts 30 weeks. The family can expect to re- locate to Washington, D.C., for at least eight months while the officer attends FSI. Hopefully, the Eligible Family Member already has a career and an employer flexible enough to allow him or her to work fromWashington, D.C., during these eight months. If so, it may make financial sense to postpone language training until arrival at post, when the family member can take ad- vantage of lower instruction rates. Meanwhile, the EFM can continue to pursue his or her career, drawing a paycheck. Of course, not every Foreign Serv- ice family is that lucky. Spending eight months in Washington, D.C., may require the EFM to stop work- ing. A “glass half-full” EFM will see the positive in this situation: Eight months in Washington will allow him or her to concentrate on the language. The EFM then can hit the ground running at post. But remember: the glass is still half- empty. Patching together a two- month, full-time FAST course at FSI and full- or part-time instruction at a private school inWashington, to get an EFM to the “3” level in eight months may require $6,000 to $10,000 in out- lays. In addition, if the EFM cannot work while in training, the family could lose its second income. Assume the EFMdraws $50,000 annually. Lost in- come plus outlays during that eight- month period could cost the family upwards of $40,000. There is no easy solution to this problem. Imagine for a moment that USAID allowed its EFMs to study side-by-side with their State counter- parts in basic language courses at FSI. Such a change would achieve parity, but both the USAID and State families will still experience lost in- come amounting to thousands of dol- lars. In addition, USAID would have to expend scarce operating expenses to support full-time EFM language training. Fortunately, a creative workaround exists. Currently, USAID pays FSI ap- proximately $1,100 per week for a short-term, concentrated eight-week FAST course. Why not give the fam- ily member the option of applying the equivalent amount to sustained, part- time, one-on-one training at a local private language school? At $47 per hour for one-on-one study, an EFM could study for two hours each day, four days per week, for almost six months with the $8,800 USAID would otherwise spend at FSI A P R I L 2 0 1 2 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 15 S P E A K I N G O U T