Why some in-country English Language Training Programs do not work: what every security assistance training officer should know

DISAM Journal, Summer, 2002 by Thomas Molloy

Introduction

Since its founding, the Defense Language Institute English Language Center (DLIELC) has conducted hundreds of surveys of overseas English Language Training Programs (ELTP). In reading the survey reports, one finds that there are no uniquely bad or uniquely good ELTPs. Effective and ineffective ELTPs around the world share common characteristics. The primary purpose of this article is to describe the principal characteristics of ineffective ELTPs so that security assistance offices (SAO) can assist host-country officials to improve their ELTPs. But first, a little background information about DLIELC.

When we tell people we work at the Defense Language Institute, they generally ask how we like living in Monterey, California. When we look out our office windows, we do not see seals and sea lions frolicking in Monterey Bay; we see the bluebonnets of Texas. We are the "other" DLI, located on Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. Just as Lackland Air Force Base, because of its basic military training mission, is called the Gateway to the Air Force, so DLIELC is, for many international military students (IMS), the gateway to America. It is the first stop on their U.S. odyssey.

In its almost fifty years of existence, DLIELC has evolved from an "out-of-the-box" concept, to a tentative experiment, to a world-renowned and fully accredited, indeed preeminent, English language training (ELT) institute. Wherever one goes in the world, one encounters DLIELC alumni, who recall their DLIELC instructors and experiences with nostalgia and gratitude. The faculty and staff of DLIELC take enormous pride in the knowledge that military and ministry of defense hierarchies throughout the world are full of DLIELC graduates, who communicate with their U.S. and international counterparts in English they learned at DLIELC.

A comparison of the modern DLIELC campus with the jerry-built, ramshackle, Korean-War vintage campus of just a few years ago, gives tangible evidence of DLIELC's evolution. However, the most significant, but less visible, evolution has taken place in its cadre of professional personnel. The average level of qualifications, experience, and professional competence has grown exponentially. The Commission on English Language Program Accreditation, after a grueling evaluation process, has recognized DLIELC's professional competence by granting it full accreditation.

DLIELC's Resident Mission

Because the primary focus of this article is to identify the types of failings we find in conducting surveys of overseas ELTPs, I will limit my description of DLIELC's resident program to just a few words. Over the past several years, DLIELC has provided English language training at its Lackland Air Force Base campus to an average of about 2,500 students per year. About 1,900 of these students were IMSs and the other 600 were U.S. Army non-native English speakers. Most of our IMS graduates proceed from DLIELC to follow-on training sites throughout the United States. The most significant exception are our JMSs who attend DLIELC to take English language instructor courses. They return to their homelands after completion of their DLIELC training. Our U.S. Army enlisted graduates proceed to U.S. Army basic training and the officer graduates to U.S. Army basic officer courses.

DLIELC's Nonresident Mission

* DLIELC has a multifaceted mission. In addition to its resident mission, DODD 5160.41 charges the DLIELC Commandant with responsibility for:

* Providing, when necessary, Mobile Training Teams (MTTs) and Language Training Detachments (LTDs) to assist in the operation of ELT programs in the CONUS and overseas;

* Performing field evaluations to assess mission accomplishment.

In fulfilling its global mandate, DLIELC deploys MTTs and LTDs to provide instructional, advisory, and managerial services to friendly nations around the world. In order to support its farflung operations, DLIELC requires all newly hired professional personnel to sign a mobility agreement, according to which they acknowledge the right of the DLIELC Commandant to send them anywhere in the world for up to three years. DLIELC personnel are carefully vetted before being assigned to represent the United States in an overseas position and must possess secret clearances before deployment.

During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, DLIELC deployed 240 personnel, representing 3,741 man weeks, to 49 countries: Bahrain, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Albania, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo-Brazzaville, Czech Republic, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Honduras, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Krgystan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Paraguay, Peru, Poland. Qatar, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Togo, United Arab Emirates, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Venezuela. Thus far in fiscal year 2002, the pace of non-resident deployments is projected to exceed that of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.