Deficiencies in U.S. federal foreign language capabilities, especially within defense-related agencies, could be reversed and overcome with an increased and sustained national focus on K-12 language learning, concluded several panelists at a Senate hearing today on improving government language proficiencies.

“Language learning in an overseas immersion environment has enormous potential for the government workforce of the 21st century,” said Dan Davidson, president and co-founder of the American Councils for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS, in his testimony, “but it must be coupled with effective K-12 language learning.”

David Chu, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, seconded Davidson’s assessment, noting that his experienced at DOD convinced him that increased K-12 language instruction would allow the U.S. “to build a better base for language success.”

The panelists also noted, however, that in order for such early language learning to truly take root, a shift in strategy and thinking is necessary. “Language has to become part of the national education mandate, not the national security mandate,” argued Richard Brecht, Executive Director of the Center for Advanced Study of Language at the University of Maryland.

If one point was made clear during this hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, presided over by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), it is that there is a long way to go before language learning takes strong root in American schools and thus leads to a necessary improvement in federal language capabilities.

A panel of government witnesses presented a rather glum view of the state of federal language capabilities and strategy, specifically within the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. David Maurer, Director of the Homeland Security and Justice Team at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), referencing a new GAO report, noted that DHS and DOD (and to a lesser extent the State Department) have no systematic method for assessing existing language capabilities, have not taken actions to identify potential foreign language shortfalls, and lack a comprehensive, strategic approach to foreign language acquisition for staff.

Jeff Neal, Chief Human Capital Officer at DHS, testified that his agency is currently in the process of “revitalizing its overall human capital strategic plan,” which nominally includes language capabilities, but admitted that this plan was “long on words and short on actions.” Nancy Weaver, Director of the Defense Language Office at DOD, summed up the difficulty defense agencies face in integrating language capacity in core mission strategies: Weaver noted that language and regional proficiency takes “a long time” to develop, and that even if such time is invested, “the next threat will be in a different language.”

Davidson, Chu, and Bretcht’s testimonies, however, painted an optimistic picture that such difficulties can indeed be overcome with sustained and early language training as a part of the national education fabric.

“I cannot emphasize enough the critical importance of developing a pipeline of young students who begin foreign language instruction at an early age,” Davidson said in his submitted testimony. “It is important that the funding that is invested in language programs, such as the Language Flagship, is invested early…so that we have an established system in place that produces foreign language speakers at the highest levels of achievement. As a result of these programs, we are indeed producing speakers that do achieve at these high professional levels.”