The Foreign Service Journal, April 2017

Language Training I recently met with a number of commercial officers at the Diplomatic Language School in Rosslyn, Virginia—a prime vendor of language training services to the Foreign Com- mercial Service. Many of you have been through DLS training, and many more of you will do so (again?) in the near future. As a result, the Commercial Service’s pro- gram bears a closer look. The program took an important turn in 2012 when commercial officers were no longer required to take lan- guage training at the Foreign Service Institute. There were many reasons behind the change, including the cost of training and the FSI monop- oly over testing certification in particular. Some FCS officers still choose to attend classes at FSI, while others opt for the mostly one-on-one instruc- tion characteristic of DLS. (In 2014 a third vendor—the International Center for Language Studies—was added as a language training option, with positive feed- back so far.) The fact that, since 2002, first-tour officers have been required to take language training in the Washington, D.C., area has been a sore point, but other aspects of the program may be chang- ing. Many of my FCS col- leagues have made sug- gestions for improvement and raised questions to THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | APRIL 2017 49 clarify the language training process. Here are some of the questions and concerns I hear: • What, precisely, is the waiver policy in the event an officer does not achieve the language score necessary to go to post? • Why is there a require- ment for officers to proceed “immediately” to post after language training so as to arrive at post no later than one month after final test- ing? • What are the FCS sick and annual leave require- ments/limitations while in language training, and why are these different from those of the State Depart- ment, especially around the winter holidays? • What is the rule about commercial officers taking area studies before, during or after language training? • Why are the number of hours of language instruc- tion each day at DLS differ- ent than, say, at FSI? In closing, it has been more than two years since AFSA and CS management held a series of meetings to review and update Com- merce’s Foreign Service Personnel Management Manual (Subchapter 800) as it relates to language training. We made enormous progress at that time, but more needs to be done. In a world of “less is more,” sequestration, reduced budgets and the demand for “more bang for the buck,” the new adminis- tration will have to carefully consider how training (and language training, in par- ticular) fits into their future plans for the FCS. As I wrote to manage- ment nearly one year ago: “Foreign language capability is a distinctive feature of the Foreign Service and a stra- tegic asset to the American foreign policy community. It is an essential tool for offi- cers to develop the regional expertise and insight that the Foreign Service Act of 1980 calls for.” What more can be done to ensure commercial offi- cers are equipped with the most up-to-date, thorough language training in order to help U.S. industry compete and the United States to successfully attract foreign direct investment in the 21st century? If you have thoughts on this extremely important issue, I would like to hear from you. Please write to me at Steve.Morrison@trade. gov. n Views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the AFSA FCS VP. Contact: steve.morrison@trade.gov or (202) 482-9088 FCS VP VOICE | BY STEVE MORRISON AFSA NEWS In a world of “less is more,” sequestration, reduced budgets and the demand for “more bang for the buck,” the new administration will have to carefully consider how training (and language training, in particular) fits into their future plans for the FCS.