1 / 17

“Language Leadership Seminar” Disseminating Best Practices

“Language Leadership Seminar” Disseminating Best Practices. Keith L. Wert Associate BILC Secretary for Program Assessment Director, Partner Language Training Center Europe Chair, Dept of Language Studies, College of International and Security Studies

gcutler
Télécharger la présentation

“Language Leadership Seminar” Disseminating Best Practices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Language Leadership Seminar” Disseminating Best Practices Keith L. Wert Associate BILC Secretary for Program Assessment Director, Partner Language Training Center Europe Chair, Dept of Language Studies, College of International and Security Studies George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies

  2. Directions • What? • Develop and conduct an Language Leadership Seminar to impart key issues in language training institution building to assist nations to meet NATO Force Goals • Why? • Because of a felicitous confluence of events: • Recurrent themes from BILC Language Assessments • US Defense Department Policy Guidance

  3. Language Assessment History The assessments originated with a formal NATO International Staff request to the Chairman of the NATO Training Group to ask BILC to conduct “an assessment of the effectiveness (including cost –effectiveness) of national programs”.

  4. Language Assessments • Multilateral team review of language training structures • Before Accession: • Slovakia, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, • After Accession: • Czech Rep., Bulgaria, Romania • IPAP countries • (FYR) Macedonia, Georgia • Assessment teams have consisted of professionals from Slovenia, Sweden, UK, and US. • Level of Interest: • Latvia: Deputy State Secretary • Slovakia: Director of Military Education • Macedonia: Deputy Chief of Defense • Bulgaria: Deputy Chief of Staff • Georgia: 1st Deputy Minister of Defense • Romania: Head of MoD Human Resources

  5. Why is this different from other assistance/cooperative efforts? • Multilateral not bilateral • Focused on policies and procedures: less on direct training advice • Not focused on provision of labs and books • Requires host country buy in: must be a cooperation • Tries to build the institutions and overarching governance

  6. Language Assessment Foci • Development of a language policy        • Integrating language policy into military personnel policies • Development of a language training structure that meets the objectives of the language policy • Establishing effective and efficient use of language training resources       - Appropriate emphasis on and balance between intensive and non intensive programs    - Ensuring resources are allocated in a transparent and ‘objective’ manner       - Effective and efficient language testing programs       - Transparent procedures for faculty professional development      - Harmonizing bilateral support for language training      - Development of Syllabi at STANAG 6001 Level 3

  7. Analytical Process: Summary Objectives • To review how the language policy fits with personnel policies. • To see if the language training structure meets the policy objectives. • To see if the structure can produce the required numbers of graduates at the required proficiency levels in a somewhat predictable manner.

  8. 1986: Coal mine canaries made redundantMore than 200 canary birds are being phased out of Britain's mining pits, according to new plans by the government.

  9. Some language structure canaries • Language Policy (Personnel policies) • Language resources allocation • Language laboratories and self-access centers • Testing policies and processes • Syllabi standardization or how long does a student take to reach Level 1,2,3? • Teachers contra management • Management contra teachers • Military language instruction • Professional Development (transparency thereof) • Intensive vs. non intensive language programs

  10. Nine Countries: Overlapping ThemesWhy? • Transient military and civilian policy leaders • Equation of language training with driver training • Lack of (civilian) specialist input into language policy formulation • Transient language school leadership • Focus on language testing pushing classroom issues and student progression to the side • Language schools subordinated to the wrong entity

  11. US Defense Department Policy Guidance • 2007: US Army to Foreign Language Training Center Europe (FLTCE) : “Drop Dead” • 1 Oct 2008: FLTCE transferred to Office of Secretary of Defense/Policy/Global Security Affairs/Partnership Strategy. Hence: Partner Language Training Center Europe (PLTCE)

  12. US Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum: “The new organization will provide flexible language training for U.S personnel while offering English and strategic language instruction and expertise for NATO Allies and worldwide partners…”

  13. So who cares? • This authority gives PLTCE the authority and funding to expand activities, seminars and language classes. • Before this activities were tolerated but on the periphery of the mission • Now it is the core mission • This authority aligns PLTCE activities with other USG programs that seek to advance NATO’s PAP-DIB initiatives. (As well as build the capacities of partner country militaries.) • Nation building by any other name.

  14. What’s New and Approved? • English for ISAF • Professional English Language Enhancement for ISAF HQ (Lead in to NATO School ISAF HQ pre deployment course) • Mission related English for Operational Mentor and Liaison Team (OMLT) training at Hohenfels, Germany • Languages for NATO and Partners • Pashto, Persian-Farsi, Russian, Arabic (MSA, Iraqi, Sudanese, Maghrebi), French, Swahili, Hausa and Tamasheq. • Advanced Language Testing Seminar • Assistance to National Testing Programs • Language Leadership Seminar

  15. Language Leadership Seminar“Under Construction” • Duration: 4-5 days • Location: PLTCE in Garmisch, Germany • Organization: • Similar to the BILC Language Testing Seminar • Use “BILC Assessment Outlines” • Theme based • Centered on “case studies” (Sanitized situations from language assessments) • Review of actual published language policy documents from selected countries • Review of minimum statistical data one should have • Try to identify the unique nature of “military” language training systems • Facilitators: From BILC community • Attendees: Military and civilian officials involved in language training policies and schoolhouse management

  16. Some themes / canaries • Language Policy (Personnel policies) • Language resources allocation • Language laboratories and self-access centers • Testing policies and processes • Syllabi standardization or how long does a student take to reach Level 1,2,3? • Teachers contra management • Management contra teachers • Military language instruction • Professional Development (transparency thereof) • Intensive vs. non intensive language programs

  17. Questions?

More Related