FL Notes

FL NOTES 303

State Office of Education, Montgomery, Ala. 36104

SOUTH CENTRAL MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION-James A. Castafieda, Rice U, Houston, Texas 77001

GUAGE TEACHING-George W. Wilkins, Jr., Language Laboratory, Tulane U, New Orleans, Louisiana 701 18

TEACHERS OF ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES-James E. Alatis, Georgetown U, Washington, D.C. 20007

SOUTHERN CONFERENCE ON LAN-

Statement of Ownership, Management and Cir- culation (Act of August 12, 1970: Section 3685, Title 39, United States Code).

1.

2. 3.

4.

5.

6,

I.

8.

9.

10.

Title of Publication: Foreign Language Annals Date of Filing: 1 October 1972 Frequency of Issue: Quarterly, in March, May, October, and December Location of Known Office of Publication: 62 Fifth Ave., New York, New York 10011 Location of Headquarters or General Busi- ness Office of the Publishers: 62 Fifth Ave., New York, New York 1001 1 Name and Address of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher-Ameri- can Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 62 Fifth Ave., New York, New York 10011; Editor-C. Edward Scebold, American Council on the Teaching of For- eign Languages, 62 Fifth Ave., New York, New York 10011; Assistant Editor-Brenda Goldberg, American Council on the Teach- ing of Foreign Languages, 62 Fifth Ave., New York, New York 10011 Owner: American Council 0x1 the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 62 Fifth Ave., New York, New York 10011 Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Oth- er Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages or Other Securities: None For Optional Completion by Publishers Mailing at the Regular Rates: Not appli- cable For Completion by Nonprofit Organiza- tions Authorized to hlail at Special Rates: The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for Federal income tax purposes have not changed during preceding 12 months

11. Extent and Nature of Circulation

Average No. Copies Each Issue

During Pre- ceding 12 Months

Printed (net press run) 12,702

1, Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales 20

2. Mail subscriptions 11,073

A. Total No. Copies

B. Paid Circulation

Single Issue

Nearest to

Filing Date

11,747

45 10,993

C. Total Paid Circulation 11,093 11,038 D. Free Distribution by

Mail, Carrier, or Other Means 1. Samples, Compli-

mentary, and other Free Copies 3 32 325

2. Copies Distributed to News Agents, but not sold 0 0

(Sum of C and D) 11,425 11,363

Unaccounted, Spoiled After Printing 1,277 38 1

G. Total (sum of E and F-should equal net press run shown in A) 12,702 11,747

I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete.

C. Edward Scebold, Editor

E. Total Distribution

F. Office Use, Leftover,

FL Notes

The National Defense Education Act of 1958 and Language and Area Studies

Stanley Wilcox

The National Defense Education Act has been extraordinarily successful in increasing American knowledge of foreign languages and foreign areas, one of the NDEA’s three substantive objectives. This success is evident in the enormous increase in the study of foreign languages at all levels of the school system that followed the beginning of Federal assistance under several titles of the Act (notably Titles 111 and VI). Downward

304 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

trends evident for over a decade were effectively reversed.1 The national climate of opinion changed and a greater interest in foreign peo- ples and other ways of life manifested itself.

T h e success of the NDEA in this regard, however, is neither total nor final. Major languages of the world continue to be neglected. T h e kinds of training available in universities i n combina- tion with language skills fail to meet the requirements of government, industry, or commerce for many areas of the world. T h e general public and its leaders lack the understanding needed to de- velop rational attitudes at home and abroad and to guide major policy decisions. T h e nonacadem- ic sectors of society make insufficient use of the skills and knowledge that have been developed with such efforts on college campuses. And, not least among the negative factors, changes i n the climate of opinion actually threaten the gains made so far under the NDEA. Class enrollments in French and German began to show decreases in 1970 although the numbers for less common languages continued to grow in many cases.

T h e current deficiencies i n the Federal program need to be discussed separately along with prospects for the future. First, however, it is important to pinpoint the original intent of Con- gress and the Administration in initiating the program. This will provide a standard by which to measure the results achieved at various levels in American education.

NDEA Objectives in Language and Area Studies

T h e objectives of the National Defense Educa- tion Act were set forth eloquently in the report of the House Committee on Education and Labor on 15 July 1958 (Report No. 2157, 85th Con- gress, 2d Session). T h e projected law was intended to expand and improve educational programs at all levels to meet critical national needs as stated i n the report. In connection with the proposal to assist elementary and secondary schools i n purchasing teaching equipment, re- modeling facilities, and hiring language supervisors, the report detailed the national need for Americans skilled i n foreign languages:

The vital importance of these subjects [mathematics,

William Riley Parker, The National Interest and Foreign Languages, 3rd ed., Department of State Publication 7324 (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1961).

science, and modern foreign languages] to our national defense and to the conduct of our foreign economic, cultural, and diplomatic relations is inescapable. In- struction in these subjects-utilizing modern tech. niques and equipment-must be adequate at the elementary and secondary school level if we are to produce the educated people our Nation needs in the years ahead. (p. 10)

In discussing the separate title devoted to foreign language development, the House report focused on the institutes for improving the skills of foreign language teachers a t all levels (subse- quently separated from the rest of this title) and the centers a t higher educational institutions that were to concentrate on the neglected languages. It noted that the title

. . . will help to emphasize competence in speaking,. , languages, and it will encourage the wider teaching of foreign languages at all levels of instruction. This title will also provide the means of preparing more Americans to conduct governmental, business, and cultural relations in an effective way. The language and area studies centers will play a significant role in developing a greater number of our citizens to represent effectively our varied interests in those countries of the world which speak languages that are rarely taught in the United States. (p. 13)

Similarly, the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in its report of 8 August 1958 (Re- port No. 2242, 85th Congress, 2d Session), de. scribed the proposed NDEA title on language development as meeting “one of our greatest re- sponsibilities in maintaining our position of leadership in the world today and i n promoting the international friendship.” T h e title was said to be intended

. . . to see to it that our representatives abroad, both governmental and business, have proficiency in foreign languages, particularly those of the Middle East, Africa, or Asia (including the Soviet Union). (p. 20)

The Senate Committee sought to get a t one of the causes of the lack of language skill-quanti- tative and qualitative inadequacies i n instruction. Correction of this deficiency became one of the major objectives of the bill. T h e report com- mented:

One of America’s principal weaknesses at the present time is a shortage of well-trained language teachers. Statistics available to this committee indicate that this situation will not change without positive action.

T h e production of skilled manpower is thus the major objective of the NDEA. In this regard

(P. 14)

FL NOTES 305

itmet the specifications of President Eisenhower’s message on education of 27 January 1958.2 T h e President called for legislation to overcome a major educational deficiency which he described in the following terms:

High-quality professional personnel in science, engineering, teaching, languages, and other critical fields are necessary to our national security effort.3

The general provisions of the new law, which had enjoyed Presidential endorsement, echoed this theme in Ti t le I:

The national interest requires . . . that the Federal Government give assistance to education for programs which are important to our defense. It is there- fore the purpose of this Act to provide substantial assistance . . . in order to insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States.

It remained for Lyndon Johnson to broaden the meaning of the reference to national defense needs. At the moment before the measure was passed by the Senate on 13 August 1958, the then Senator noted that “There is no security except in people,” and declared that “Security con- sists of people who are alert, people who are vigilant, and people who are trained to cope with the tremendous problems of the modern world.”

The achievements of the NDEA must be measured in terms of the objectives of the original legislation. T h e objectives in the field of foreign language focused on the production of specialists at institutions of higher education to be em- ployed in a variety of fields, including education. This objective found its fullest expression i n the title on language development, Ti t le VI, which placed principal emphasis on the training of language teachers and “other service of a public nature.” It also provided training i n fields needed for practical application of language skills i n various professions.

The designers of the legislation also recog- nized the importance of developing substructures which would serve as feeders to the graduate

’For the legislative history see Ellen McDonald Gumperz, Internationalizing American Higher Edu- cation: Innovation and Structural Change (Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in Higher Ed- ucation, 1970). pp. 48 ff.

U. S. Government General Services Administra- tion, National Archives and Records Service, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United Sta’tes, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1958 (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, 1959), pp. 127-32.

school while enhancing the quantity and quality of instruction in modern foreign languages in the elementary and secondary schools and i n the colleges. T h e need for suitable teachers, teaching materials, and educational technology like language laboratories was also perceived. This broad-gauge approach is the basis for the confidence of the House Committee that the NDEA would offer “an effective approach to those critical areas of shortage and neglect which now carry the highest priority in the national interest.”

Among the more recent statements of the objectives of NDEA Tit le VI, the most striking is one signed by eight Republican Congressmen i n 1966. I n expressing their support for the pend- ing International Education Act, the Congress- men stressed the contribution to American education already made by that NDEA title and noted its objective was to overcome the fact that Americans had been learning only the languages of a small minority of the inhabitants of the world. To remove that deficiency, they said, would take many more years than the eight that had elapsed. The following extract of their views comes from the report of the House Com- mittee on Education and Labor of 17 May 1966 (Report No. 1539, 89th Congress, 2d Session):

Three-quarters of the population of the earth speak languages for which almost no instruction [is] available in the United States. The serious implications of this academic void are too obvious to require dis- cussion, and while the situation will require many more years to remedy we have made great progress since 1958 . . . From the beginning, the emphasis in the centers and associated programs has been on proficiency in languages and knowledge of cultures closely related to the Nation’s paramount interests in foreign relations, and in our commercial and economic development interests as well . . .

WILLIAM H. AYRES, ALBERT H. QUIE,

CHARLES E. GOODELL, JOHN M. ASHBROOK, ALPHONZO BELL, OGDEN R. REID, GLENN ANDREWS, EDWARD J. GURNEY,

Members of Congress

Senator George Aiken of Vermont, the senior minority party member of the Senate, gave similar support to appropriations for Foreign Lan- guages and World Affairs on 17 December 1969 (Congressional Record, p. S 16987). He noted “. . . that this work is nowhere near done” and urged

306 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign, Languages

a higher level of Federal assistance for the study of foreign languages. His remarks were immediately endorsed by Senator Mike Mansfield, Sen- ate Majority Leader.

The statement in early 1970 by the Counsellor to the President writing “on his behalf” is also apposite to the question of certain objectives of this legislation. Mr. Moynihan showed that its purpose was to facilitate continuation of an ac- tivity that was very much “a matter of the national interest.” The words in his letter to Presi- dent Pusey on 27 April 1970, promising continued support for Foreign Language and Area Studies programs funded through Title VI, were:

It would be difficult to find an area in which the pur- suit of disinterested scholarship was more directly a matter of the national interest.4

NDEA Achievements in Precollege Education

Enrollments in modern foreign language courses at public high schools offer the most con- venient and probably the most accurate measure of the success of the NDEA in achieving its objectives on that level of education. Information on private schools is less complete. Data could also be obtained on the growing numbers of language laboratories, foreign language teachers and supervisors, and even the number of text- books and other teaching aids during recent years. Statistics might be assembled on training and retraining programs for teachers or on the spread of teacher proficiency tests in state quali- fying examinations. But none would show the amount of student exposure to language as directly as enrollments do. Data on years of language study would be even more desirable, but they are not available over a period of years for purposes of comparison.5

In 1958, modern foreign language enrollments in public high schools (grades 9-12) remained hovering at the low level to which such enroll-

’ U. s. Government General Services Administra- tion, National Archives and Records Service, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (Washing- ton, D.C.: U. s. Government Printing Office, 1970).

6The undated results of an OE-financed survey conducted before 1970 are contained in Glen D. Wil- bern and Hans Rutimann, Lengths oj Sequences in A4odern Foreign Languages in U. S. High Schools (New York: The Modern Language Assoc., 1970), pp.

pp. 593-95.

7 , 12.

ments fell in 1934. During that period (1934- 1958) modern language enrollments were smaller as a percentage of total enrollments than at any time since the turn of the century, when Latin dominated instruction. The enrollment in mod. ern languages represented 16.4 percent of the total and amounted to 1,296,000 enrollments in 1958. But new forces were at work. Ten years later, as the result of steady growth, the percent. age share rose to 27.7 percent, an absolute num. ber of 3,518,000 enrollments.6 The increase of over ten percentage points in its share in such a short period and at a time when all public high school enrollments were rising even more rapid- ly testifies to the powerful thrust behind modern language study during that period. It also indi- cates the enormous demand for teachers and equipment that such a growth rate implies.

Comparable insights result from considering the percentages of public schools offering instruction in modern foreign languages at different times in the recent past. In 1954, less than half of the schools (45.6%) offered their students any instruction in modern foreign languages; by fall 1959, the situation had already improved and sixty percent were offering such instruction. By fall 1968, nine years later, there has been an even more dramatic change in the percentage of public schools providing instruction in modern foreign languages. The percentage rose to 78.5 (an- other 1.3% taught only classical languages) even though lower grades were being included in the definition of secondary school (grades 7-12).7 Without the lowest two grades it may be ex- pected that the percentage giving instruction in modern languages would have been even higher.

NDEA Achievements in University and College Language and Area Studies

Degree programs in foreign languages and literature have emerged in the last decade as the fastest growing field of academic study, a fact for which NDEA support at all levels of education probably bears principal responsibility. Although a very small field in absolute numbers compared to the social sciences, engineering, or education,

(I Julia Gibson Kant, Foreign Language Oflerings and Enrollments in Public and Non-Public Secondary Schools, Fall 1968 (New York: The Modern Lan- guage Assoc., 1970), inside cover.

1968 data from Kant, pp. 2-3; earlier data from Parker, p. 26.

FL NOTES 307

it increased its share of degrees awarded at a faster rate than any other discipline in the natural or social sciences or the humanities during the decade 1958-59 to 1968-69, which started with the adoption of the NDEA.

At the beginning of the period, bachelor's de- gees in foreign languages and literature accounted for 1.2 percent of the 379,931 degrees that were earned; in 1968-69, based on estimated data, they were 3.1 percent of the total, an increase of over two and one-half times. No other field even doubled its share in the estimated 155,000 degrees conferred in 1968-69, the closest being psychology with a 95% increase. At the master's level, foreign language and literature was the only discipline that doubled its share of degrees during the same timespan. At the doctoral level, this discipline again outperformed all other fields in the social sciences and the humanities by increasing its share 19 percent. Compared to the natural sciences, language and literature

was outstripped in only two fields: mathematics and statistics (4773, and engineering (74% increase). Office of Education information sum- marizes the percentage distribution of degrees during the latest decade for which data are available.

Table 1 may actually understate the achieve- ment of Federal support for language and area studies. College and university programs which have received the status of NDEA centers, like many other language and area programs, are not limited to the production of degrees in foreign languages and literature. They are interdiscipli- nary in character; that is, they offer an oppor- tunity to earn a degree in one of several disciplines or departments while including regional specialization, or, less commonly, in area studies without specializing in one discipline. The degree granted may be in history, or political science, for instance, but it does include enough training in the language and culture of some

Table 1 Percentage Distribution of Earned Degrees by Field and Level: 1958-59 and 1968-69

Bachelor's Master's Doctor's

Field of Study 1958-59 1968-69 1958-59 1968-69 1958-59 1968-69

All fields (number) (percent)

Natural sciences and related professions

Mathematics and statistics Engineering Physical sciences Biological sciences Agriculture and forestry Health professions Science, general program

Social sciences, humanities, and related professions

Fine arts Philosophy and rel igion English and journal ism Foreign languages Psychology Social sciences Education Library science Social work Other

379,9 3 1 100.0

29.4

2.4 10.0 4.1 4 .O 2.1 6.4 0.5

70.6

5.7 1.8 5.5 1.2 1.9

12.7 18.3 0.1 0.1

23.3

755,000 100.0

22.7

3.8 5.2 2.8 4.9 1.3 4.3 0.4

77.3

6.4 1.4 8.2 3.1 3.7

18.7 16.0 0.1 0.4

19.1

72.532 100.0

23.6

2.1 9.3 4.4 2.8 2.2 2.4 0.5

7 6.4

6.2 1.3 3.9 1.5 1 .7 7.6

39.4 2.2 2.4

10.1

188,600 100.0

22.3

3.6 8.7 3 .O 3.2 1.2 2 .o 0.6

77.7

6.1 1 .o 5 .O 3 .O 2.5 9.4

30.9 3.1 3.0

13.8

9,360 100.0

47.0

3.0 7.6

19.4 11.2 4.1 1.6 0.1

53.0

3.8 2.2 4.1 2.6 6.8

12.9 15.9 0.1 0.3 4.3

26.1 00 100.0

49.0

4.4 13.4 15.3 12.2 2.8 1 .o 0.0

51 .O

3 .O 2.2 4.4 3.1 6.3

12.3 15.7 0.1 0.3 3.7

_ _ ~ ~ ~ ~

Source: DHEW, Projections of EducationalStat ist ics to 1978-79. OE-10030-69 (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Print ing Office, 1970), pp. 42-43.


C

I I I j m w P

Figure 2 Number of Earned Degrees

194F69

0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Thousands

0

80C

70C

600

500

400

300

2 00

100

0

Thousands 800

Master's

700

600

500

400

300

200

I00

1

Sources: 1949-50 through 1 9 5 6 6 7 , DHEW, Earned DegreesConferred, 1962-63, OE-54013-63, p. 2 1957-58 through 1964-65, DHEW,Projections of €ducat/onalStatistics to 1977-78, OE-10030-68. p 31 1965-66 through 1968-69. DHEW, Earned Degrees Conferred, varlous years

w r

310 American Council on t h e Teaching of Foreign I-anguages

Level A l l Fields

A.B. 2.5 M.A. 3.3 Ph.D. 2.9

area of the world to give a special competence for work in that area.

If we consider degrees granted in connection with NDEA-assisted language and area centers. it is clear that the NDEA stimulated an even greater growth in degree production than is shown by data on language and literature. Tn 1969-70, language and literature accounted only for twenty percent of the bachelor’s and master’s degrees and eighteen percent of the doctorates reported to the U. S. Office of Education by NDEA centers. The next most common disciplines at the B.A. level were history and political science (sixteen and twelve percent, respective- ly). At the M .A. level, degrees for area studies and history were the second and third most frequent (seventeen and thirteen percent). At the doctoral level, degrees in history were slightly more common than those in language and literature (twenty to eighteen percent) with political science a close third (fifteen percent).

While the 107 NDEA centers represent only a small part of such programs now being offered at American colleges and universities, they include most of the major and well-developed programs that encompass a number of disciplines and professional fields in their regional specialization.

The trends over a longer period of time in foreign language study and in the closely related area studies programs are vividly depicted in Figure 1, which illustrates the rapid growth in the number of degrees awarded in the fields of foreign languages and literatures during the post-World War 11 period beginning in the 1949- 50 academic year. At the baccalaureate and master’s levels, a peak was reached immediately after the end of the war. A slow decline followed which bottomed out in 1954-55 and became a rapid ascent to over six times as many bachelor’s and master’s degrees by 1968-69 (3,548 to 21,985 B.A.’s and 789 to 5,050 M.A.’s). At the doctoral level, the postwar peak was not reached until 1955-56 (253), a level not regained until five years later; by 1968-69 the number of Ph.D.’s was four times as many as in 1954-55 (187 to 749 Ph. D. Is).

To provide a perspective for understanding trends in the relatively small field of foreign language and literature studies, it is necessary to examine the broader movements in academic studies in general. A graph showing degree awards in all fields during the same time period exhibits many features common to the special

Language Fields

Russian and A I1 Other Slavic

Languages Languages

5.5 1 I .8 5.8 10.8 3.0 3.9

field. The sharp dip at the bachelor’s level shows the effects of the Korean War, the G.I. Bill of Rights, and even the birth deficits of the Depres. sion years; these trends are mitigated at the master’s and postponed at the doctoral levels. By the 196O’s, the effects of the boom in college at- tendance are everywhere evident.

In the field of Russian and other Slavic lane pages we see a very similar picture. Russian was one of the six languages designated as critical or neglected in Bulletin 1 of 10 March 1959, issued by the U.S. Commissioner of Education at the beginning of the NDEA Title VI program.8 Al- though Russian has the largest enrollments of any language in this group, it and the other Slavic languages show a remarkable rate of growth. Moreover, in recent years the number of doctorates awarded for the other Slavic languages are beginning to outnumber those in Rus sian alone.

In 1967-68, the same number of Ph.D.’s was registered by both fields (fifteen), and in the following academic year other Slavic languages were responsible collectively for a larger number of degrees than Russian (nineteen compared to six. teen Ph.D.’s), according to published data on earned degrees. At lower levels, however, the share of the other Slavic languages failed to show comparable growth after separate reporting for them to the U.S. Office of Education began in

The rapidity of growth in Slavic studies greatly exceeded that in language and literature or in all academic fields of study as measured by awards of degrees at the various levels, Based on 1955-56, in thirteen years (i.e., by 1968-69) the following multiples of growth occurred in the different fields at the three levels:

1959-60.

The numbers of degrees awarded in each of these fields at each level since 1954-55 at two-year

I( Donald N. Bigelow and Lyman H. Legters, NDEA Language and Area Centers, OE-56016 (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 70.

FL NOTES 31 1

Table 2 Index of Degrees Awarded

Selected Fields (1955-56 = 100)

Base Year 1954-55 1955-56 1957-58 1959-60 1961-62 1963-64 1965-66 1967-68 1968-69

Number: All Fields B.A. 287,401 31 1.298 363,502 392,440 417,846 498,654 555.613 671,591 769,683 M.A. 58.204 59,294 65,586 74,435 84,855 101,050 140,772 177,150 194,414 Ph.D. 8,940 8,903 8,942 9,829 11,622 14,490 18,239 23,091 26,189

B.A. 92 100 117 126 134 160 178 21 6 247 M.A. 98 100 111 126 143 170 237 299 328 Ph.D. 100 100 100 I 1 0 131 163 205 259 294

Index:

Number: Language and Literature B.A. 3,548 3,979 4,465 5,482 7,975 12,217 15,313 19,522 21,985 M.A. 789 878 1,041 1,391 1,626 2,391 3,727 4,865 5,050 Ph.D. 253 253 224 2 32 261 379 51 8 707 749

B.A. 89 100 112 138 200 307 385 49 1 553 M.A. 90 100 118 158 185 272 424 554 575 P h D . 74 100 89 92 103 150 205 279 296

Index:

Number: Russian and Other Slavic B.A. 60 69 80 116 334 507 590 724 81 6 M.A. 21 25 23 29 118 147 202 275 271 Ph.D. 9 9 4 5 16 15 20 30 35

B.A. 87 100 116 168 484 735 855 1,049 1,183 M.A. 85 100 92 116 472 588 808 1,100 1,084 Ph.D. 100 100 44 56 178 167 222 333 389

Source: DHEW, Projections of Educational Statistics to 1978-79 for 1957-58 to 1965-66; otherwise, Earned Degrees Conferred, various years

Index:

intervals are shown in the following table, which develops index numbers based on 1955-56:

Table 2 and Figures 3 and 4, which are based on index numbers, cast more light on these trends. The increasing popularity of under- graduate majors in Russion and other Slavic languages is one of the most striking developments in recent academic history and greatly surpasses growth rates for Russian in language enrollments. A similar pattern emerges at the master’s level. Doctoral awards in Russian showed an er- ratic pattern of growth, particularly before the NDEA became effective, but the numbers are too small to permit firm conclusions. The figures are plotted at two-year intervals except for the first and last years shown. So far we have exam- ined principally the rapid growth in the number of degree awards in the field of language and literature as a whole. One subfield-Russian and other Slavic languages-was singled out for par- ticular attention.

The share of neglected languages in degree awards remained remarkably stable over a twelve- year period despite the rapid growth in the number of degrees conferred. These languages accounted for less than ten percent of awards at the bachelor’s level and less than fourteen percent at higher levels. The neglected languages increased their share sharply only at the baccalaureate level, from 4.6 percent to 8.2 percent. If Russian and other Slavic languages are deducted, the share of the remainder in the expanded total number of degrees actually diminishes at the master’s and doctoral levels.

The vast majority of degrees are for the common languages: French, German, and Spanish. During the period under review, each of them actually succeeded in expanding its share of degrees by a perceptible margin. The only excep- tion is Spanish at the intermediate level, where the percentage share dropped slightly.

The startling increases in the numbers of lan-

312 American Counci l on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

1,20(

1 ,ooc

80C

600

400

200

100

0 1[.

Figure 3 Index of Degrees Awarded, Selected Fields

Bachelor's (1955-56 = 100)

1957 1961 1965 1969 1953 1 -58

I I I I I I I

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/

, ' Language and I / Literature

I I I I I I I 1957 1961 1965 1

1,200

1,000

800

600

100

!OO

00

)

I ~ ~~

- 62 -66 -70 -54 -58

Source: DHEW, Projections of Educational Statistics to 1978-79 f o r 1957-58 t o 196566; otherwise, Earned Degrees Conferred, various years.

FL NOTES

500

400

313

I

-

-

Figure 4 Index of Degrees Awarded, Selected Fields

Doctor's (1955-56 = 100)

1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 -54 -58 - 62 -66 -70

i00

400

300

200

100

0 9

-54 -58 - 62 -66 -70

Source: DHEW, Projections of Educational Statistics t o 1978-79 for 1957-58 t o 1965-66; otherwise, Earned Degrees Conferred, various years.

page degrees awarded since inception of NDEA assistance at all levels of education has been recorded by all language and language and area study programs at American institutions of higher education. If attention is limited to the relatively few programs receiving Federal aid under NDEA Title VI, we find a similar picture. The available data compare degree awards in the

various disciplines, including language and literature, in the year before NDEA assistance began (at only nineteen programs initially) with the number of such awards a decade later. The awards reported in Latin American programs are separated out from the remainder because of the difficulty of distinguishing between students of Peninsular Spanish which, along with French, is

314 American Council on the Teorhing of Foreign Languages

Table 3 Language and Area Degrees at N D E A Centers

Selected Years*

Academic Year Percent Increase World Area 1958-59" * 1967-68 1968-69 1958-59 to 1968-69

Al l Areas A.B. 91 4 4,613 5,356 586.0 M.A. 369 2,063 2.1 10 57 1.8 Ph.D. 183 599 61 6 336.6

A.B. 31 2 3,030 3,487 1,117.6

Ph.D. 104 423 41 0 394.2

A.B. 185 1,008 1,123 607 .O M .A. 106 519 335 31 6.0 Ph.D. 44 138 100 227.3

Al l Except Lat in America

M .A. 247 1,337 1,279 517.8

Soviet and East European Only

*Data as reported b y 106 N D E A language and area centers showing degrees awarded i n thedisciplinescom- bined w i t h at least 15 hours of regional study as well as degrees in language and literature.

""Before the in i t ia t ion of Federal assistance under the National Defense Education Act. The last 8 NDEAcen- ters established began t o receive assistance i n 1967-68. A n addit ional center was created b y fission i n 1969-70, bringing the to ta l t o 107 centers.

most commonly studied, and students of Latin America. Two recent years are included because of the sharp reduction in awards in Soviet and East European studies in 1968-69.

The principal direct effect of Federal assistance has been to increase the rate of Ph.D. production from roughly 300 percent for all language and literature degrees (base year: 1955-56) to nearly 340 percent in a shorter period for language and area degrees (base year: 1958-59). A similar acceleration is recorded at the bachelor's level (from 550% to 590% in a shorter timespan). NDEA center awards for master's degrees show gains roughly the same as those from other language and literature programs, although again in a shorter interval. The number of degrees at NDEA centers includes increases in the various disciplines since, as noted above, language and literature accounts for only about twenty percent of the total number of degrees awarded with a regional specialization at NDEA centers.

If we turn to language enrollments we find comparable trends in American higher education. Enrollments in uncommon languages (including Russian) nearly trebled from fall 1958 to fall 1968, according to information collected by the Modern Language Association.9 The growth in Russian enrollments was not as fast as that in degrees awarded. Table 4 also shows the number of enrollments reported at NDEA centers and their share in national totals. Twenty-

eSee total at the end of Table 4.

seven of the eighty-five uncommon languages are being studied in class only at NDEA centers.

Conclusion In fall 1970, right after the peak of NDEA

Title VI and other Federal support, the Modern Language Association (MLA) conducted a new survey of language enrollments. Preliminary reports indicated continued growth for most of the uncommon languages but some erosion in the high points reached previously by some common languages and Russian. Spanish and Italian are the only exceptions among ihe five major languages, and they showed substantial gains. The losses were not large enough to threaten past gains since 1958. As a whole, foreign language enrollments lost only Z.Zyo between 1968 and 1970 despite a general reduction in college language requirements.

The achievements of the National Defense Education Act are clear from the growth of enrollments in uncommon modern languages as well as from awards of academic degrees and the spread of foreign language study in the high schools. They brought the United States closer to meeting the objectives set in 1958 and subse- quently. The major objectives of the emphasis on the neglected languages and the non-Western world may be summarized as follows:

1. encouraging disinterested scholarship in the field of foreign language and area studies,

2. helping Americans to understand and cope with the problems of hitherto neglected parts of the world,

FL NOTES 315

Table 4 Uncommon Modern Foreign Language Enrollments

at Higher Educational Institutions Nationwide and at NDEA Centers

(Fall Semesters)

Language

Afrikaans Albanian Amharic Arabic Armenian Bambara Bemba Bengali Bulgarian Burmese Cambodian Catalan Cebuano 1V isa van 1 Chinese Chi.Nyanja Czech Danish Dutch Eskimo Estonian Ewe-Fon Finnish Georgian Greek Hausa Hawaiian Hindi -Urd u Hungarian Ibo (Igbo) Icelandic Indonesian-Malay Japanese Javanese Kabyle Kannada Kazan-Tur k ic Kikongo Korean Lingala (IiNgala) Lithuanian Malayalam Marathi Mende Mongolian (Kha lkha) Munda Ban ta l i ) Nepali Norwegian Pashtu Persian-Tajik Pidgin English

1958

3 1

37 1 35

9

585

42 18 114

4

128

48 14 18

5 12 837

26

14

6

602

23

Natio,

7 963

1 1 4 4

835 60 2 1 20 30 6

2

2.444 1

176 202 172 5 4

70 3

440 23 79 253 103

6 63

2.81 3 1

1 3 1 69

24 1 4

42 2 1

942

129

ide

1965

7 2 13

9 30 37

18 8

3

3,359

158 93 143

1

43 4

217 23 92 266 74

20 66

3.443 2 7 3

82 3 30 1 1

21

6 803

113

1968

1

7 1,100 31

7

18 7

26 14 1

5,061

182 146 158 16 5 1 76

146 62 121 368 65 34

7 100

4,441 3

1

70

10 2 1 6 21

1 ,I 03

194 3

NDE.

1968

7 * 560 17

7 *

18" 4 0" 5

1 1.71 1

87 1 1 19

5" 1 42 0" 20 62

278 21 16

53 2,016

3"

1 "

57 0" 6 2" I * 6" 16

0" 94 0"

157 2

Centers

% of 1968 Vation wide

100 51 55

100

1 0 0 57

19

100 34

48 8 12

100 100 55

14 100

76 32 47

56 47 100

100

81

60 100 100 1 0 0 76

9

81 67


Nat ion wide ND €A Cen ters

1965 % of 1968 Vatio n wide 1958 1963

7 08 2.05 I

5 16

131

2 34 12

112 705 14

14 15 34 33 I

105 3

81 3

1 1

33 14

Language

Polish Portuguese Pro venqa I Quec hua Rumanian Scottish-Gaelic Serbo-Croatian Shilha Sinhalese Slovak Sloven ian Sotho (seSotho) susu Swahili Swedish Tagalog Tarnazight Tamil Telugu Thai-Lao Tibetan Tswana Turkish Twi-Fante (Akan) Ukrainian

Uzbek Vietnamese Welsh Wolof Xhosa Yakut Yiddish Yoruba

(incl Ruthenian)

1968 1968

309 596

36

1

4 448

1

3 6

36

1

1 1 3

607 3,034

8

12 134

1 20

3

130 682 28 7 38 5 58 30 2 92 3

59

20 16

5

10 17

15,113

656 4,048

8 6 20 5

209 1 2 2

3 608

1,101 14

23 7 71 53 3

119 I

70 9 19

4 10

109 24

119 1,003

6" 20"

100 1 2 1

3" 374 94 8

23 7" 71 * 53 * 3"

1" 103

70

19"

4 10 0"

24"

18 25

1 00 100

48 100 100 50

100 62 9

57

100 100 100 100 1 00 87

100

14

100

100 100

100

Subtotal 4,370 13,189 20.820 7,365 35

Hebrew Russian

Total

3,131 7 16,214

23,601

5,538 31,755

50,482

8,093 31,538

54.744

10,169 38.883

7 05 4,374

7 1 1

69,872 12,444 18

NB:Nationwide data adapted f r o m Modern Language Association reports fo r 1958, 1963, 1965, and 1968. N D E A center data, not necessarily comparable, are taken from enrollment reports. Junior college enrollments in Russian are omitted; Russian and Hebrew listed separately as exceeding 10,000 registrations.

"When NDEA center data exceeded the M L A total, the latter was used.

3. developing proficiency in foreign languages and knowledge of foreign cultures, 4. producing language teachers and facili-

tating language training, and 5. training potential representatives abroad

for governmental, business, and cultural relations.

If Federal assistance is withdrawn, the first effects will probably occur in the field of instruction in the most uncommon languages. As Con-

gressman Michel of Illinois told the House on 16 July 1970, I ' . . . as a national resource, 1 do not think we can summarily say that there is no need for Federal subsidy for classes of this nature." The Congressman was referring to the fact that institutions of higher education had a "definite problem" in cases where classes were small, ". . . sometimes only five or six students, and ob- viously the class is a losing proposition to the university" (Congressional Kecord, p. H 6837).