We were not interested in foreign affairs and foreign problems and so there was not any great demand in American education for the study of foreign languages for their proficiency in communication. That was one factor.

The other factor was, I believe, that as American education, American democratic education grew, the philosophy of education which developed was such that it did not foster solid subjects such as modern foreign languages, English literature, mathematics, chemistry, physics, history. It developed in the direction of life adjustment and foreign languages especially did not seem to require any place in a life adjustment program because our American children did not have to worry about foreign languages in their local towns and villages across the country.

So there seemed to be no place for foreign languages in that philosophy.

So I would say those two things, American philosophy of education, and the fact that the philosophy grew up during the period of isolationism has left us in our present situation with a very weak structure in foreign languages in our school.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Dr. Mildenberger, you may proceed now for 2 minutes. You can say anything in 2 minutes that you care to say.

Mr. MILDENBERGER. Yes, sir.

I should like to emphasize the major point of my prepared statement which is that if the Federal Government is to allot any money for foreign-language education, that money should be specifically earmarked so that we are sure that it will reach the foreign-language profession and will help develop that profession.

If I may be permitted, I should like to read just a portion of my statement aloud.

Before any real improvement can take place at the local level across the country, a great deal of hard professional work will be necessary in order to devise and demonstrate new and effective course sequences and methods to create suitable teaching materials and to raise the level of teacher proficiency.

I should like to emphasize that in the profession of modern language teaching there exists a very real potential for bringing about the needed changes.

At various places in the country eager and capable language teachers in colleges, high schools, and elementary schools, know what is needed and stand ready to pool their abilities and energies to bring language instruction in line with the urgent demands of the national interest.

Here is my important point: If this potential is to be employed to maximum effectiveness and in the quickest manner, it must have the benefit of, one, direct financial assistance, and, two, centralized national direction which will wisely marshal and coordinate it and will disperse funds directly to the individuals or to the institutions immediately suited to responsibility for developmental activities.

That is the point I should like to leave with you. I feel that this money must be designated and earmarked for foreign language study if it is the will of the committee to see that language teaching is improved.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much, Dr. Mildenberger.

Your three statements you have left for the record, I assure you, will be very carefully studied.

We appreciate the information you have been able to bring us. We regret that limited time for your testimony.

Mr. MILDENBERGER. Thank you, sir.

(The material referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF KENNETH W. MILDENBERGER, DIRECTOR, THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAM MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you the problem of Federal aid, specifically for modern foreign language education. The Modern Language Association is the largest and one of the oldest of American learned societies in the field of the humanities, and it exists for the purpose of advancing literary and linguistic studies in the modern languages, including English. The MLA's foreign language program is a special study of the role that modern foreign languages should play in American life. Now in its 6th year, this program has been supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. I have been a full-time staff member of this program since its inception, and director since last summer.

The activity of this far-ranging study has united a once scattered and splintered profession, created a national network of communication with language teachers at all levels of education, accumulated a considerable body of pertinent data on the present situation and foreseeable needs, awakened many language teachers to the desirability of new objectives and new methods, and, perhaps most significant, achieved a professional consensus on policies and criteria for more effective language education in the national interest. But the major work of reshaping and strengthening language education is still ahead. The foreign-language-teaching profession is pleased that both of the education bills under consideration, H. R. 10278 and H. R. 10381, contain provisions for language education. Please let me emphasize that neither of the two bills seems to permit a society such as the MLA to apply for any of the funds to be provided. So I am here solely to offer information, to comment on the bills, and to suggest, in the light of our MLA investigation, the most effective use of Federal aid in improving, in the national interest, the status of modern foreign-language education.

In this connection, I see three major problems which face us, and I should like to discuss these problems as background to my recommendations concerning the two education bills.

First, there is the historical attitude of American professional education toward the modern foreign languages. As I am sure you know, during the past 3 or 4 decades the trend in American education, especially public education, has been away from content courses and toward a curriculum centered upon student interest in the here-and-now, upon courses with everyday practical value. I call attention to this trend not for the purpose of criticism; I merely comment on a factual situation which perhaps still reflects to a degree the disinterest in learning that prevails in considerable segments of American society, and which also reflects the democratic efforts of American education to find some common denominators for schooling all of the children of all of the people. In this situation the modern foreign languages, as well as English literature, mathematics, chemistry, and physics, have suffered. The point is that a whole generation of educational administrators and theorists has been instilled with skepticism concerning the place of modern foreign languages, not to mention other content courses, in the school curriculum. Alert professional educators are now revising their views. As a specimen of new thinking I call to the attention of this committee a recent report entitled "Educating the Academically Talented Secondary School Pupil in Modern Languages," which issued from an invitational conference on the problem of the academically talented pupil, sponsored by the NEA and chaired by Dr. James B. Conant. I have submitted a copy of this document to be included in the records of these hearings. Despite such promising signs, it is well to bear in mind that any general change in deep-seated educational attitudes may take considerable time.

Secondly, I wish to point out the ironically weak bargaining position of modern foreign languages in the securing of necessary funds for development of more effective instruction. This weakness has resulted chiefly, I believe, from what

many think of as the auxiliary character of language education. I may clarify the point by a contrast with technological subjects. Science has direct primary application for large numbers of individuals in Government programs and in industry. Business, industry, and Government can clearly perceive their real needs to recruit people trained as physicists, biologists, electronic specialists, chemical and aeronautical engineers, laboratory technicians, etc. These fields offer concrete career opportunities which both our youth and our school guidance directors immediately understand. On the other hand, aside from teaching, the direct primary application of foreign-language education has until recently seemed limited indeed. Relatively small numbers of professional interpreters and translators are required. A working knowledge of one or more foreign languages is a most desirable quality, at this point in history, as an auxiliary to some other specialty. But language needs have not been easy to dramatize, since they have not been statable as primary career opportunities. Now, this fact has had serious consequences so far as effective development of language education is concerned. Let me continue my contrast further. Technological study in American education has been heavily subsidized by industry through scholarships, direct grants to colleges and universities for improved science facilities, and the preparation of excellent student-counseling materials; by philanthropic educational foundations, through huge grants for experimentation with new teaching techniques, and for development of new teaching materials; and by the Federal Government, notably through the National Science Foundation with its vast structure of summer institutes for teachers of science and math, and its financial aid for research, conferences, etc. But language education has received direct support only in modest grants from philanthropic foundations. Please bear in mind that I am not concerned here with the quite necessary magnitude of financial support to science education. The significant point is that science education is the recipient of specific earmarked financial support from a variety of generous sources; modern language education has been less fortunate in direct developmental aid. The third problem I wish to discuss stems in large measure from the other two. I refer to the outmoded approaches to language education which are especially prevalent in our public schools. Inattention by professional education over the past 40 years has reduced modern foreign language study to a mere token place in the curriculum. A Modern Language Association survey in 1954 indicated that 56 percent of our public high schools did not even offer modern foreign language, and less than 15 percent of our students were enrolled in a modern foreign language class. Two years is the typical sequence offered, and this is obviously too little time for effective teaching of all the skills of understanding, speaking, reading, and writing any language. Consequently, language courses have too frequently become problem-solving ordeals in grammatical analysis and word-by-word translation of very simple readings. Competent specialists assure me that all available high-school teaching materials are designed only for this kind of course. Too many of the language teachers in our schools are required to have only enough training to teach this kind of course.

The point is that this sort of language education is not at all suited to the needs of our people in the second half of the twentieth century.

Now, I have dwelt on these three problems of educational atmosphere, weak bargaining power of languages, and ineffective language courses in order to underscore the gravity of the current situation in language education. Before any real improvement can take place at the local level across the country, a great deal of hard professional work will be necessary in order to devise and demonstrate new and effective course sequences and methods, to create suitable teaching materials, and to raise the level of teacher proficiency. I should like to emphasize that in the profession of modern foreign language teaching there exists a very real potential for bringing about the needed changes. At various places in the country, eager and capable language teachers, in colleges, high schools, and elementary schools, know what is needed and stand ready to pool their abilities and energies to bring language instruction in line with the urgent demands of the national interest.

But if this potential is to be employed to maximum effectiveness and in the quickest manner, it must have the benefit of (1) direct financial assistance and (2) centralized national direction which will wisely marshal and coordinate it, and will disperse funds directly to the individuals or the institutions immediately suited to responsibility for developmental activities. To be sure, American education is primarily a state, local and private responsibility. But

in the field of modern foreign languages, at the present time, I feel that the major developmental concerns are too national in scope and too urgent in nature for us to depend solely on Federal contributions disseminated generally to State education agencies, where, for the most part, language interests are still ineffectively organized.

It must be apparent by now that I am recommending that the Congress establish a central agency for the specific purpose of sponsoring and administering a national program of research and development in modern foreign language education in order to meet the urgent present and future needs of the Nation. This agency should be authorized to initiate or support at least the following activities:

1. Summer and year-long institutes for improving the competency of language teachers.

2. Development of longer language-learning sequences in our schools, be ginning in the elementary school where possible, and continuing through high school.

3. Increased teaching of the so-called unusual languages in colleges and universities, and in the schools where feasible.

4. Research, development, and demonstration, especially for the purpose of improving methods and materials in language classes.

5. Opportunities for language teachers to travel and study abroad in the countries which speak the languages they teach.

An advisory board should play a prominent role in shaping the policies of this agency, and the membership of this board should, of course, include effective representation from the fields of modern foreign language education and of professional education.

I am not sure whether such an agency should be independent, like the National Science Foundation, or a function of the Office of Education. I am inclined to feel that it should be an integral with the Office of Education, as proposed in H. R. 10278. Through its regular channels of communication, the Office of Education could diffuse information issuing from this central language agency to State and local school authorities, thus hastening the effective revitalization of language education.

State education agencies can perform valuable service in strengthening foreign language education locally, if they are alloted funds for language supervision personnel and for improving teacher-training. But these funds should bear the stipulation that they are to serve modern foreign langauge instruction. In the various provisions of title II of H. R. 10278, such stipulation is made for science and methematics, but it is lacking for languages. H. R. 10381, in title IX, dealing with State consultants, does designate assistance for modern foreign languages.

One final comment. Any general plan for college scholarships ought to reflect the national need for future citizens with aptitude and facility in modern foreign languages. The national defense scholarship plan of H. R. 10381 (title II) does specify that in the selection of recipients special consideration should be given students with "superior capacity and preparation in science, mathematics, or modern foreign language." The undergraduate scholarship plan of H. R. 10278 (title IB) says only that "special preference will be given *** to those with good preparation or high aptitude for mathematics or science." Languages should be mentioned specifically in any scholarship plan.

To summarize: In the present state of affairs, modern foreign language education can be helped most effectively if Federal aid establishes a central agency for development of language education; aid programs to State education agencies, and any national scholarship plan, should be specific in their pertinence to modern foreign language education.

(Supplementary documents submitted by K. Mildenberger)

[Reprinted from Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, pt. II, September 1956]

FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAM POLICY

Broad policies governing the general conduct of the foreign-language program were laid down during the spring of 1952 by the executive council of the Modern Language Association, which at the same time appointed the MLA executive

secretary to be director of the program, with discretionary powers to determine future policy. In December 1952 the council appointed a steering committee to advise the director.

Since the foreign-language program during its first 2 years was essentially an investigation, no further policies were enunciated in this period. In 1955 the steering committee was enlarged by the inclusion of representatives of the American Associations of Teachers of French, German, Italian, Slavic, and East European Languages, and Spanish and Portuguese. At the first meeting of this enlarged committee, on February 12-13, 1955, an important statement on qualifications for secondary-school teachers of modern foreign languages was formulated. This statement was subsequently endorsed for publication by 18 national and regional language organizations.

At its meeting on April 28-29, 1956, the steering committee addressed itself to the formulation of additional policy statements. These and two earlier statements are published on the following pages in the hope that they will be discussed by foreign-language teachers at local, State, regional, and national meetings.

The Steering Committee

Theodore Andersson, director, foreign-language program; associate professor of French and associate director, master of arts in teaching program, Yale University

Josephine Bruno, head, department of modern languages, Medford, Mass., High School, representing the AATI

Stephen A. Freeman, vice president of Middlebury College and director, summer language schools, former president of AATF and NFMLTA

Renée J. Fulton, administrative assistant, New York City Board of Education, representing the AATF

Claude P. Lemieux, professor of Russian, United States Naval Academy; secretary-treasurer, AATSEEL, and representing this association

Albert H. Marckwardt, professor of English, University of Michigan, and former chairman, committee on the language program, ACLS

Bayard Q. Morgan, professor emeritus of German, Stanford University, and former editor of the Modern Language Journal

Werner Neuse, professor of German and director of the German school, Middlebury College, representing the AATG

Howard Lee Nostrand, professor and executive officer of romance languages, University of Washington

William R. Parker, professor of English, Indiana University, former MLA executive secretary (1947-56), and director, foreign-language program (1952-56) Donald D. Walsh, head, Spanish department, the Choate School, and editor of Hispania, representing the AATSP

VALUES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDY

The study of a foreign language, like that of most other basic disciplines, is both a progressive experience and a progressive acquisition of a skill. At no point can the experience be considered complete, or the skill perfect. Many pupils study a foreign language only 2 years; longer time is of course needed to approach mastery. At any point, however, the progress made in a language, when properly taught, will have positive value and lay a foundation upon which further progress can be built. It is evident therefore that the expectancy of values to be derived from language study must be relative to the amount of time and effort devoted to it.

The study of a foreign language, skillfully taught under proper conditions, provides a new experience, progressively enlarging the pupil's horizon through the introduction to a new medium of communication and a new culture pattern, and progressively adding to his sense of pleasurable achievement. This experience involves :

1. The acquisition of a set of skills, which can become real mastery for professional use when practiced long enough. The international contacts and responsibilities of the United States make the possession of these skills by more and more Americans a matter of national urgency. These skills include: a. The increasing ability to understand a foreign language when spoken, making possible greater profit and enjoyment in such steadily expanding activities as foreign travel, business abroad, foreign language movies and broadcasts.