For the Working Group: Christine Brown, Melvin Nielsen, Nancy Rhodes, Kathleen Riordan, C. Edward Scebold, Martie Semmer, Emily Spinelli, Ann Tollefson, Elizabeth Welles, Helene Zimmer-Loew.

Architecture can be imagined as the outcome of either of two different processes: On the one hand, homes and other edifices are constructed individually and randomly as people arrive in an area, assess their own needs, and work to create the buildings that will meet them. Certain of these needs may be quasi-universal: the need to be protected from the elements or the need for sites of community activity (marketplaces, burial grounds, etc.). Other needs are more particular: the need to see one's style reflected in the appearance of one's home (as opposed to the need to show that one "belongs," aesthetically speaking) or the need for privacy (versus the need for contact with extended family and neighbors). There are clear advantages to this "bottom-up" architectural process: a greater variety of solutions to problems will probably emerge, needs may be met more promptly, and the constraints and possibilities of local conditions can be taken into account.

On the other hand, architecture may be viewed as the product of the architect. Although the architect certainly attends to the types of needs enumerated above, projects are conceptualized holistically and plans are viewed from the broadest perspective. A building makes its own aesthetic statement while relating visually to its surroundings in an appropriate way. The architect is responsible for every detail of construction and adherence to regulations, thus guaranteeing the building's safety against the elements, the vagaries of human usage and occupation, the work of time. Finally, an edifice must be imagined and created in such a way that it will effectively and efficiently serve the purposes for which it is being built. A centralizing perspective such as the architect's allows for greater coherence and a pooling of ideas and resources. It facilitates planning for the future and awareness of the past.

The Architecture of the Foreign Language Profession

The first description in the paragraphs above most closely defines the process of creation and evolution in our profession. There is little evidence of broadly conceived and well-organized action in the service of an overarching and long-term vision. There is ample evidence, however, of dedicated but narrowly focused and labor-intensive endeavors to structure-or "house"-ourselves professionally and then get on with the business at hand. As foreign language educators, we "live" and function in a variety of educational institutions (schools, colleges, universities, government language agencies), language-specific associations at both the national and chapter levels, National Foreign Language Resource Centers, state-level associations, the Joint National Committee for Languages-National Council for Languages and International Studies (JNCL-NCLIS), regional councils, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), international groups, issue-specific organizations (e.g., American Association of Applied Linguistics), the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC), position-specific associations (National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages, National Association of Department Supervisors of Foreign Languages), academic alliances, level-specific groups (National Network for Elementary Language Learning, the Modern Language Association), FLTeach, grant-funded projects, professional development initiatives, certification programs, and on and on.

A loose and mostly random network links (or separates) these entities. Groups have sometimes formed in response to the need to solve a specific problem. Likewise, organizations have come into being through the force of one individual's personal vision or as a result of conflicts among individuals within an existing association. Despite some remarkable successes in solving certain of our profession's problems, and despite the fact that much of our current architecture reflects a laudable desire to bring everyone under a professional "roof" (if not one roof), our failure to adopt the architect's perspective. Our tacit decision to leave the structure of the profession to chance has had consequences with which we must now contend. It is probably safe to say that the scenarios proposed by other "New Visions" writers will elude the profession's control unless and until we generate a structure within which we can elaborate, disseminate, and evaluate them.
The following points are divided into two categories. First, we review specifically the drawbacks of our current architecture, thus justifying the need for change. Second, we enumerate characteristics of an architecture that would allow us to solve current problems, derive maximum benefit from our rich professional history, and plan effectively and responsibly for the future. Underlying our comments is the belief that our divisions have allowed us to be easily conquered, and that we will be professionals only when we reclaim our past and wrest control of our future from the forces currently shaping our working lives. Those two actions will require a community architecture that welcomes, nurtures, guides, protects-but also elicits admiration and respect from those outside. The tallest of orders!

Why Change?

• To Have More Reliable and Constantly Updated Information.
  There is currently no systematic process for ensuring either that we know the evolving needs of teachers, students, and public, or that we are meeting those needs. Worse yet, the majority of foreign language educators probably do not belong to any professional group, so their input is often missing from agenda-setting and decision-making processes, and their professional lives are solely in the hands of school district or college/university administrators, most of whom are not in our field. Many new teachers mention classroom management as a concern, for example, yet our conference programs do not typically include sessions on this topic. School districts can thus attract new teachers away from our influence by providing in-service programs on classroom management.
• To Avoid Duplication of Efforts.
  Each of the hundreds of associations and groups mentioned earlier probably holds a conference, publishes a newsletter, awards prizes, and maintains a Web site. Energy and resources are thus devoted to redundant endeavors, while other important professional projects are never brought to fruition. Individuals and boards also spend many hours reinventing the wheel-struggling to figure out how to accomplish what some other group already knows how to do.
• To Increase Our Visibility Outside the Profession and to Facilitate Contributions by Well-Known Figures
  Our boards of directors do not make provision for the inclusion of non-FL members (students, parents, administrators, school board members, those in government at any level, publishers). It is difficult to imagine how we could get or are currently getting the perspectives of these types of people (whom we affect and who affect us on a daily basis). It is equally difficult to imagine how a well-known or influential person sympathetic to our "cause" would reach us, as a profession, in order to offer support (nor have we proven adept, in most cases, at reaching such individuals to request their support). We need the type of visibility that art educators are enjoying through their public service announcements (featuring sports and entertainment figures).
• To Renew Outdated Structures
  Certain organizations were founded at a point in time when their structure and potential contributions were clearly appropriate, effective, and necessary. With the passage of time, however, their raison d'être may have disappeared or changed. The regional organizations, for example, no longer have an obvious sphere of action, with advocacy and professional development emerging as critical areas and moving to the state level (although perhaps returning to the national level in the near future). We need new, more relevant structures, but also an architecture that permits us to adapt over time.
• To Respond Structurally to the Changes Wrought by Technology
  Technology has made the national and international levels more accessible to almost everyone, thus changing the relationship between the individual teacher and the profession, between one association and another, between the profession and the outside world. Our current uses of technology have generally evolved in ad hoc fashion and do not maximize its potential.
• To Develop a National Agenda
  We must determine anew what needs to be done under what structure and who is going to do it. Specifically, we must determine roles and profiles for each participating association (which may involve reconfiguring conferences, modifying the relationships among organizations, etc.) and improve communication among organizations.
• To Get Beyond the 15%-20% of the Profession Reached through Current Structure
  In light of the problems mentioned below in (D) and (E), we cannot be sure that even those activities and events being duplicated throughout the country are meeting the profession's needs: statistics suggest they reach only a small percentage of the foreign language educators in our country. Obstacles include the provision of non-discipline specific professional development programs at the preK-12 level, the current reward system in higher education (which favors individual accomplishments in the research arena over development of teaching skills and contributions to the profession), and a random approach to teacher education at any level which fails to ensure that new teachers will appreciate (or even be aware of) the potential role of professional associations in their lives.
• To Evolve in our Own "Leadership Orientations" and to Be More Inclusive While Preparing Tomorrow's Leaders
  We need a professional development model for ourselves as leaders. We must locate, recruit, and mentor younger foreign language educators in preparation for the retirements that will occur in the next five to ten years. Many of the collaborative and cordial relationships among today's leaders did not develop from planned links among associations, and it cannot be assumed that such relationships will automatically develop and flourish among tomorrow's leaders without structural "motivators."

Features or Characteristics of the New Architecture

• One that facilitates the establishment, advancement, realization, and evaluation of the national agenda.
  The "New Visions" project may well produce a document or a series of documents that could constitute a national agenda. Were this the case, an initial task would be to solicit approval from as many associations and individuals as possible (recognizing, however, that forward movement must not be impeded by those with personal agendas or persistently negative attitudes). Once established and approved, the national agenda would be a priority consideration in all association decision-making and action. Yearly feedback from all interested parties (and perhaps from an outside consultant or board) would ensure both flexibility and focus. Current examples of national agenda items include professional licensure and teacher standards. Models of agenda building, evaluation and maintenance should be ever-present guides.
• One that provides mechanisms to develop balance in the four frames-symbolic, human resources, political, structural-partly through recruitment and mentoring of new young leaders
  Most teachers, whether in the foreign language field or in some other discipline, probably have strengths in the human resources and structural leadership frames. If our leaders continue to be drawn from the ranks of educators, we must develop ways of training them to perform effectively in the symbolic and political frames. And, we must find ways to recruit students who are already proficient in these areas to the field of foreign language education. This Herculean task may well be seen as the permanent and sole function of a yet-to-be-created association.
• One that Allows Us to Be Mindful of Our History
  Many of the current practices and structures that are redundant, no longer pertinent, ineffective, or uneconomical continue to exist because we do not remember why they were instituted nor how they have evolved. On the other hand, certain past practices we have abandoned might now be relevant, fresh and useful. The new architecture must encourage archiving and sharing of documents, processes, ideas, artifacts, and so on. A historical ethnography could provide the impetus for this project through interviews with the profession's "elders," documents analysis, and other appropriate techniques. Once begun, our field's "story" could be continued through the efforts of one or several associations.
• One that Rationalizes Our Approach to Conferences, Publications, Services
  It stands to reason that if foreign language educators and others know they can reliably obtain a certain type of information from a given publication, then our communication with them will be facilitated. If they must choose from among 100 publications, communication will be impeded and redundancy and unnecessary expense will remain problems. The new architecture must force us to determine what services and products are needed, why, when, and by whom. It must then allow us to elaborate the means of offering those products and services while maintaining the financial health of stakeholder associations. We assume that a variety of services and products not currently available through the profession might replace some of those currently available from a confusingly high number of organizations.
• One that Identifies and Nurtures Links Within and Outside the Profession
  Through our architecture, we must be empowered and motivated to establish permanent connections of a purposeful nature among our own associations and with groups as diverse as ASCD, NCTE, AAHE, the Urban League, the PTA, etc. Professional linkages must be approached with a willingness to rethink the current architecture completely. For example, could the regionals and ACTFL operate more effectively if they were not independent of each other? Could the regionals be more effective (both individually and collectively) if each assumed responsibility for a specific arena of inquiry and action, such as advocacy, applications of research in the classroom, heritage language learners, and so on?
• One that is Flexible and Responsive to Changes
  A key component of the new architecture will be the provision of systems for constant monitoring and renewal. An "architect," taking the form of a national board or of a specific individual, must evaluate in ongoing ways the effectiveness and appropriateness of the structures we eventually devise. Evaluation may occur only once every five years, but it must be scheduled regularly and must focus on whether associations are playing their designated roles and on whether the national agenda is thereby being carried out.
• One that Uses Technology to Overcome Issues of Geography and Communication
  It is difficult to begin to explore the myriad possibilities represented by this characteristic of a new architecture, but we must be certain that technological applications do not become merely bells and whistles added to the same old dog-and-pony show. If, as seems to be the case, three-day conferences are not effective tools for professional development (even if they are the best means to ensure collegial relations among educators and encourage collaboration), then distance learning approaches to sessions, workshops or speeches from the conference site would appear to be a waste of time. Since summer institutes of one to four weeks'duration do appear worthwhile, we should create professional structures or networks that allow for dissemination of institute content to, and interaction with, those who cannot be present at the institute site. Most organizations do not own or have easy access to the necessary technology, therefore collaborations with school systems, colleges, universities, and private corporations may need to be built into the new architecture.
• One that has Clout
  As noted earlier, foreign language educators are "housed" in a variety of edifices, the most common of which are districts, colleges, universities, and private schools. Everyone who defines his or her occupation as foreign language educator resides in that part of our architecture over which we have had almost no reliable influence: the employers. Many foreign language educators do not participate in what we have come to think of as "the profession": the world of associations, memberships, journals, newsletters, conferences, workshops, etc. Their employers may thus be, by default, viewed as those with power and authority. Our new structures must allow us to exercise control over those who shape the lives of foreign language educators, even if we can do so only in a symbolic fashion. A good model might be the AAUP and its "censure" function: could we not censure, however figuratively, districts or colleges that impede the achievement of goals set in our national agenda? Could we not likewise present "raspberry"-type awards to negative media portrayals of foreign language speakers? Could we not offer assistance (information, consultants, models) to institutions that are inadvertently placing obstacles in our path? As we find structural means to consolidate efforts and work better together, we will finally be in a position to take public stances condemning those who threaten the goal of a bilingual citizenry.

Additions from Delegate Assembly and the New Visions Focus Session
1999 ACTFL Convention

I. Broad Support for Need to Change

II. Need to Avoid Duplication Within the Foreign Language Profession

• Duplication is widespread within the foreign language profession
  
  • Duplication of effort
  • Duplication or organizations
  • Duplication of function / mission within organizations
  • Duplication of publications
• Duplication is costly to organizations
• Redundant memberships: Teachers cannot afford multiple memberships

III. Suggestions for How To Initiate Change

• Research the existing structures are and what they do
• Establish functions / mission statements of existing organizations and structures
• Develop an organizational chart of existing organizations and structures
• Make a list of necessary functions for the FL profession including new functions arising from New Visions
• Link all functions to an organization but avoid duplication

IV. Suggestions for New Structures and Features of New Structures

• Create a Council of Organizations
• ACTFL should assume a Clearinghouse role
  
• Hold a Round Table discussion at ACTFL Headquarters with ideas from other organizations regarding the profession and its structure
  
• Link to fields beyond foreign languages
  
  • Education groups
    
  • Business groups
    
  • Parents / Community
• Waive conference fees for foreign language participants to non-foreign language conferences; reciprocate with other disciplines and organizations
  
• Redefine structures so that more FL professionals are included
  
• Redefine the role of the regional organizations
  
  • Regional organizations should go to the state conferences instead of vice versa
    
  • Part of state dues should go to support the regionals
    
  • Use technology to link and network among the regionals organizations and within the regional organizations
    

Architecture of the Profession Synthesis and Significant Additions from the Board of Reviewers Comments

• The current structure did not all happen by chance, so there may be a need to review history before making substantive changes.
  
• There is a need to better understand what we have before we propose changing it.
  
• There is little evidence that the leadership in other organizations shares our interest in making changes to the profession's structure.
  
• This paper does not adequately address the major trends (i.e., globalization and technology developments) that must be included in any discussion of future organizational structure.
  
• The key word is rebuild. The new architecture must be designed from the ground up and the new structure built to accommodate the changes that will allow our profession to grow and prosper.
  
• It seems unlikely that the New Visions process will get to the heart of strategies needed for improvement until people who are uninvolved professionally are asked what their needs are and how the profession can meet them.
  
• Regional organizations do have "an obvious sphere of action" and make it possible for foreign language professionals to attend meetings and participate in professional renewal. Without the regionals, many foreign language educators could not engage in professional development.
  
• There needs to be a hypothetical model of how the umbrella organization would function.
  
• Specific needs and agendas of different segments of the field may be lost in the focus on national, field-wide needs. It is critical that diversity not be lost or stifled in the eagerness to rationalize.
  
• Moving toward a discussion of language teaching in general would help us all move our agendas forward and would help the ESL/TESOL/NABE groups get beyond the stigma of the world "bilingual." Uniting our resources could produce the "powerhouse" effect that is mentioned in this paper.
  
• The focus that a national agenda would bring to the profession is needed; however, there should also be recognition and celebration of the profession's diversity of interests, even when some of these interests are in conflict with each other.
  
• A balance needs to be established between centralized coordination and the various segments of the profession (e.g., regional, disciplinary, institutional level).
  
• The role of state organizations needs to be addressed more completely.
  
• A "national agenda" does not work and/or is not desirable.