The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

A ll of us at the Foreign Service Institute were delighted to see the FSJ devote an entire issue to FSI and training (“A Class Act: the Foreign Service Institute and FS Training,” July-August 2005). In this dangerous and demanding period of international diplomacy, it is more vital than ever to ensure that our peo- ple receive the best possible training to prepare them for the challenges ahead. We deeply appreciate the time and effort that went into this issue, and hope it will receive wide readership throughout the Foreign Service. That said, it was disappointing to read some of the more pointed criti- cisms directed at FSI’s language train- ing programs — not because we can- not take criticism, but because the writers served up a mixture of venera- ble canards and personal piques along with constructive dissent. Let me address the most troubling of these. The keynote article, “FSI Settles into Arlington Hall,” reported some results from a recent survey of AFSA members. Like self-selected inter- viewees the world over, the people who chose to respond were primarily unsatisfied customers. And it’s not surprising that so many responses focused on language training; of all the courses FSI offers, these loom the largest, as they go on for months and have a direct impact on students’ tenure, job performance and salary levels. The sharpest barbs were aimed at the Arabic program. We acknowl- edge that this program, which has undergone tremendous growth since 9/11, has been uneven at times. FSI now has more students enrolled in Arabic training than any other lan- guage except Spanish. Enrollments have tripled since 2001, with roughly 340 students in FY 2004, and around 230 students for the first half of 2005 (including early morning classes, an online reading maintenance course, the basic course at FSI and the fol- low-on advanced training at the field school in Tunis). FSI now has around 40 teachers of Arabic, many of them new instructors who have been carefully selected and given continuous training in advanced teaching methods. They use a basic textbook from Georgetown Univer- sity, supplemented by FSI-produced modules on consular, political, eco- nomic and public diplomacy work. Language training supervisors sit in on classes regularly for quality con- trol, ensuring that instructors do not slip unnecessarily into English or convey unacceptable messages to the students. Thus, though the unfortunate incidents reported in the survey may have taken place at some point, they are most definitely not the norm. We were taken aback by the sug- gestion that the Russian program is still mired in Soviet-era materials, insisting on rote memorization and devoid of interactive dialogues. In fact that program too has undergone rapid and thorough change since the fall of the Soviet Union that began nearly 20 years ago. Here FSI has been a national leader in preparing original materials suited to real- world demands. Today’s students use basic texts prepared in-house, enriched by frequent field trips, excursions, interviews, discussions and games. There is even a volun- tary in-country immersion program that gets great reviews. Some were concerned that many of our language instructors are con- tractors. This is not intended to enable quick weeding-out, as specu- lated, but comes both from a staffing shortage and the DRI- and national security-related expansions and oscil- lations in enrollments. Assignments can change at the last minute, spousal and outside agency signups take place at their own rate, and the need for languages ebbs and flows over time. Under these conditions, contracting instructors as needed is a prudent and reasonable approach that allows us to ramp up quickly for new require- ments. And finally, we see no persua- sive reason to retreat from the “gold standard” of instruction by native speakers, which has long set FSI apart and, when supported by outstanding teaching methods, offers an incompa- rably rapid and authentic learning experience. We see no persuasive reason to retreat from the “gold standard” of instruction by native speakers, which has long set FSI apart. The Truth About Language Instruction at FSI B Y M ARIE T. H UHTALA S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 19 S PEAKING O UT w