The early pashto testers have spoken

... and they are not speaking highly of Monterey's testing process.

Background: the Defense Language Institute (DLI) in Monterey has been teaching languages for years and years. They feel (and rightfully so) that they own the process (as far as the USG/military is concerned). There is a branch in Washington DC (DLI-W) that provides some "low-density" languages (few students) that the State Department requires, as well as languages that are also taught in Monterey. In DC, the languages are mostly farmed out to private sector language schools (though we're told the materials are controlled by DLI-Monterey).

Recently, as AFPAK HANDS (an effort to provide select servicemen with extensive language and cultural training before going to Afghanistan and Pakistan) came to fruition, a lot more students have been going through DLI-W. (Specifically in Pashto, Dari, and Urdu languages.)

At least one of the schools feels that they create the same quality and speaking-level student in 4 months that Monterey creates in a year. Granted, there may be a slight vocabulary difference between the two, but it's not as sizeable as the 8-month deficit would lead you to believe. In fact, they've created some arguably 2 or 2+ solid speakers (the numbers are defined by the ILR scale).

The point of contention, of course, is in a world where efficiency is valued more than traditional metholodogy. If DLI-W can create on average the same level of speakers in a third the time, why spend the extra money that DLI (Monterey) requires for a full year?

Here's the rub: because DLI (Monterey) holds the torch on standards, they are the ones that provide the tests. This should definitely provide a standardization between the school houses so that a "2" in DC is the same as a "2" in Monterey. Unfortunately, many of us in DC believe that they feel the pressure and are actively trying to ensure that DLI-W does not produce results as high as Monterey.

Partial justification for this appearance of inequality: we are provided video and audio recordings of previous Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPI, the evaluation) at various levels of accomplishment. None of the interviews that were given this week were anywhere close to how the recordings went. They spoke a lot faster, used a lot more words that they know have not been covered (since they "own" the materials), and they were less patient with answers and interrupted the students. None of this was evidenced in the recordings.

Granted, this could easily be explained away by saying the recordings are out-dated (though they're within a couple of years) and the standards have changed. Though I think that statement is overly optimistic, it is possible.

Another possible cause: lack of standardization among testing instructors in Monterey. This is actually very possible, regardless of politically motivated efforts (actual or apparent). This is also very evident in many of the instructors in our (private-sector) course; some instructors really have little-to-no instructional ability or motivation, and with little apparent mentoring or training it appears that they will stay in that rut.

The fix? Either bring the senior tester in to each OPI to observe the other testers administer the interview, or record (video) the OPI and have the senior tester evaluate it afterward. Either way, they can provide guidance to bring them in alignment with the desired standard.

Regardless, it's annoying to have personal morale, confidence, and possibly money* be adversely effected as a result of politically-motivated discrimination.

Do I believe I'll be able to score a "2"? I think it's possible, though I wouldn't categorize it as a strong "2" so if the tester desires then they can easily "stump the dummy".

Just my $0.02. (Just over three more weeks and I'm up to bat.)


* Money: if we score a "2" or higher in some of these languages, we are eligible for a $200 or more bonus per month.