The Web Of Power: Council On Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission

"Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Shakespeare's immortal wisdom rings eternal. The web I refer to in Shakespeare's quotation is the international corporate/banking web of power and global dominance; the "we" refers to several little-known groups in our society that conduct the weaving. Who are the faces behind the military industrial complex, and what common traits bond them? Who guides our foreign and domestic policies, orchestrates the wars, the chaos, the suffering, the poverty, while reaping the financial benefits at the expense of so many others?

Gliding the halls of government and commerce like some ethereal ghosts, a select group of powerful wealthy wield their might through clandestine means; their cabal is often described in obscure terms such as the Invisible Government, the Insiders, the Power Elite, and the Establishment. These men and women would like the misinformed public to believe it's all a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. Yet could their goals simply be transparent and rudimentary; power, greed, and retaining control of their amassed wealth at all costs? Only the machination that accomplishes these goals appears complex: the interwoven infrastructure, the ability to manipulate, to distort the truth, to polarize groups, always diverting the peoples' attention from their true nature and identity. This article focuses on three of their primary organizations that develop their cabal and set into motion their objectives: the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission.

Council on Foreign Relations: The Council on Foreign Relations, from hereon referred to as the CFR, was founded in 1921. It's architect was Colonel House, the behind-the-scenes power to Woodrow Wilson and representative of the turn-of-the-century American industrialists and bankers, including J.D. Rockefeller, J.P.Morgan, Jacob Schiff, and Paul Warburg.

The late Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University professor and CFR member, stated in his book Tragedy and Hope, "The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established". Simply stated, the goal of the CFR is to influence all aspects of American society in such a subtle, gradual process that one day Americans would wake up and find themselves in the midst of a one-world system.

Indeed, for the past eighty years, the majority of cabinet positions have been held by members of the CFR, as well as past presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Certainly, as a leading CFR and TC member, Kissinger's own admittance that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" and "Middle East oil is too important to be left in the hands of Arabs" add little doubt to this gang's truer motives.

Quigley also makes reference to The Establishment members' desire to stay "close to governments," an indictment that The Establishment gains and controls its privileged status through political power rather than market competition. Many of the self-proclaimed pillars of capitalism are in reality capitalist failures who seek and constantly rely on bailouts from the American taxpayers. Had Ken Lay's Enron, Dwayne Andreas' ADM, Jack Welch's GE, George Schultz's Bechtel, David Rockefeller's Chase Bank, or the recent airline industry's CEOs not seek bailouts, corporate welfare and exclusive government contracts, laundered through national security and foreign policy, they would have floundered under a real competitive marketplace. However, thanks to their brotherhood CFR connections, they continue to profit.

Members come from predominantly affluent circles and upbringings, as well as from those individuals with a self-serving sense of extreme ambition, elitism, and ultimate disdain for humanity. Its membership represents the interests of a governing American upper social class which owns a disproportionate share of the country's wealth, contributes a disproportionate number of its members to governmental bodies and decision-making groups, and dominates the policy-making process.

You may join the CFR only by invitation, and although the CFR has just 4000 members they are nearly all current and former senior U.S. government officials who deal with international matters, renown scholars, and leaders of business, media, human rights, humanitarian, and other non-governmental groups.

The grand political facade is best exposed by the fact that George Bush Sr. pledged both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot's membership in the CFR club.

Bilderberg Group: Originally named for the Dutch hotel where the first meeting was held in 1954, the Bilderberg meeting is a private annual gathering for the politically and corporate influential, with revolving representation from the world's western leaders in global banking, education, politics, business, military, and the media.

Bilderberg Group founder, Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, a protege of the Rothschild family, once said, "It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body".

Many political careers seem to dramatically soar after attending their first Bilderberg meeting, including Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair. Once the groomed politicians meet the Establishment's approval as their chosen representatives, the machination is set into motion to convince the various citizenry's to elect these candidates. Henry Kissinger's 1991 Bilderberg address underscores their one-world government intent by saying "today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government." This scenario is a prophetic blueprint to our current war on terrorism's stratagem.

Though formally claiming their meetings are only healthy debates, even its members concede that Bilderberg debates do have a global impact on political, economic and military policies, a debate that circumvents our democratic process. At previous meetings, a common European currency and US-China relations were discussed before their respective governments became involved.

Trilateral Commission: Founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski and others to foster cooperation among the big three industrial powers of the U.S., Europe and Japan, utilizing its future influential members to design a multinational consolidation of the four centers of power--- political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical--- in the formation of a one-world government.

Overlapping membership frequently occurs within these three organizations, as throughout corporate board rooms, helping to consolidate their interests. Both the Bilderbergers and the Trilateralists insist on anonymity of its attendees, no media coverage, and closed-door meetings. If their discussions are truly for the common good, why not tell the world?

Revolving door politics and influence is a golden key of opportunity for the members of these stealth organizations. In his final address, President Eisenhower warned about the dangers of such a controlling organization in government. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

His warning was dutifully noted but few heeded his words. Kennedy appointed Dean Rusk, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, to be his Secretary of State, Ford Motors president Robert McNamara, who later served as head of the World Bank, was Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, Investment banker C. Douglas Dillon was Kennedy's Secretary of the Treasury.

In recent administrations, presidential cabinet members have included George Schultz with Bechtel, Dick Cheney with Haliburton, Robert Rubin with Citibank, and Bush Sr., Frank Carlucci and Jame Baker III with the Carlysle Group, each making millions from their insider influence peddling in the private sector. Even President Obama's administration is heavily weighted with CFR members.

The illusion of ideological differences between the two political parties that is conveyed to the unsuspecting American public is best summarized by the advice of former CFR and cabinet member Henry Cabot Lodge to his colleagues "Is there anything we can APPEAR to do?" This charade is given credibility and legitimacy by the controlling CFR influence of top management within corporate media. In reality, a uni-party collusion between the CFR represented politicians and their corporate counterparts continues to solidify and presses its totalitarian agenda.

To insure their power, the Establishment covers their bases. For decades, presidential candidates from both parties have been CFR members. When Bush, Cheney, McCain, Bradley, Gore, and Lieberman, all CFR members. touted the corporate globalization agenda such as NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, World Bank, ad nauseum, one could question where their loyalties might be.

Even in the event that a presiding president's administration gets caught in some unsavory practice, the chosen legislators that head the investigative committees are often members of the CFR; thus, the truth is never revealed and the issue is quietly swept away. During Clinton's Whitewater investigation, Jim Leach, House Republican from Iowa (CFR) directed the investigation. During George W. Bush's tenure, Lieberman (CFR) Dodd (CFR) and Levin (CFR) headed committees that investigated the Bush Administration while Paul Volker, former Federal Reserve and Trilateral Commission chairman, was named chairman of an oversight committee for the International Accounting Standards Board to review recent lapses in accounting ethics.

The governmental solution presented for disciplinary or reform action is often presented by one of their own foxes watching their henhouse, assuring no constructive changes are even implemented. Through the influence of revolving door politics, corporate executives are assigned to direct public regulatory agencies that dismantle the very laws that were designed to protect the public from the abuses of corporations.

For a quick examination into the media's influence on public opinion, consider the virtual monopolistic view of the CFR promotes through mainstream media. Think you're getting the true scoop on the Sunday talk shows? They might as well call this political commentary the CFR Misinformation News Hour. You have CFR guests from both Republican and Democratic parties interviewed by CFR journalists (George Stephanopoulos, Diane Sawyer, George Will) with CFR commercial sponsorship (Archer Daniel Midlands, Merrill Lynch, IBM, etc.). Switch to PBS, you say? Jim Lehrer (CFR) will also make sure the incriminating questions are never asked.

Under the guise of risk management, multinational corporations' global conquest may encounter risks, so when private insurers are unwilling to accept the risks, corporations turn to national and multilateral government agencies which offer investment guarantees and political risk insurance backed by taxpayers.

These companies have even cornered the market on the cures for the very ills they create. General Electric, which owns four of the largest air-polluting companies, is the largest producer of air pollution equipment. Dupont, one of the largest toxic waste producers, has created a lucrative line of toxic waste disposal services and Westinghouse, which earns its money selling nuclear weapons, also profiteers from selling equipment to clean up its mess. Also, alcohol companies own rehabilitation centers and tobacco companies own cancer clinics. A vicious cycle.

The processes of corporate power do not work in isolation. The economic and legal mechanisms that allow the privatization of the commonwealth, externalization of costs, predatory economic practices, political influence-buying, manipulation of regulation and deregulation, control of the media, and the use of police and military forces to protect the property of wealthy, all of these work synergistically to weave a complex web of power. The institutionalization of multinational corporations and banks is exemplified through the structural adjustment programs of the World bank and the international Monetary Fund. These programs channel more of the debtor country's financial and productive resources to war debt payment, an extortion process which ultimately opens easy access for American and Western European companies to exploit these countries' cheap sources of labor and raw materials.

These world institutions serve to extend the concept of colonialism or feudalism globally, circumventing other countries', (including our own) national sovereignty, representative democracies, and ultimately the citizen's wishes, while instead serving the corporate elite and wealthiest shareholders' interests. This financial blackmail is dictated by the international banking leadership with such a ruthless fanaticism to the unsuspecting governments and citizens, the results are consistent. The countries are left in financial and social turmoil, in places as diverse as Bolivia, South Korea, Russia, Nigeria, and Mexico. The shallow premise that these world financial institutions' leaders are guided by benevolence is tragically false, easily recognized when one peruses the disastrous reality of these institutions' actions. in a leaked internal document, CFR member Lawrence Summers proposed in 1991 that the World bank encourage the migration of dirty industries and toxic waste toward less developed countries

Our present reality so strongly resembles a complete Orwellian 1984 chapter and verse, that you wonder if his warning has become the how-to manual by the very people Orwell warned us about; global alliances and perpetual war, political and mainstream media double-speak and perverse definitions of "war is peace" and "peace is war" have become today's normalcy.

Fortunately, this darker tale of humanity has a hopeful side, a hope that resides with us. The 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protest in Seattle marked the consolidation of previously diverse social, labor, and environmental activist groups, each finding a common enemy within the ranks of the multinationals and their institutions, creating the birth of the anti-globalization movement. The movement is organized locally, nationally, and internationally, reaching across borders, creating a vibrant web of organizations, communities and networks. People are demanding greater participation in the decision-making process, including ways to exert more democratic control over the multinational corporations as well as questioning these world institutions' policies and legitimacy.

Another recent effort by individuals has been conducted at the shareholder meetings. Small shareholders represented through labor pension funds have organized and applied pressure upon corporations to base their decisions on more humane practices rather than always the bottom line.

In recognition of the citizen's abandonment by our political leaders, a grassroots groundswell underpinning the Iraq anti-war protests was formed and currently, the Occupy America movement has gained momentum and must continue.

What else can we do? Possible solutions could include a public outcry demanding an impartial inquiry and full disclosure of all CFR, TC and Bilderberg members and their associated activities.

We can strengthen ourselves as individuals, becoming more informed of the truth and mitigating our vulnerabilities as to being manipulated as voters, as consumers, and as citizens. Hey, and we could always give them a call or pay them a visit. Here are their addresses:

Council on Foreign Relations:

Harold Pratt House, 58 east 68th St. New York, NY 10021 Ph# (212) 434-9400 Fax# (212) 861-1789

Trilateral Commission: 345 East 46 St. Ste. 711, New York, NY 10017 Ph#(212) 661-1180 Fax#(212) 949-7268

In parting, George Orwell, in his wisdom, may have left us, the people, with some equally powerful seeds to sow..."In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is truly a revolutionary act."

Michael McGuerty is a writer / photographer living in the Santa Fe, New Mexico area.
Please send any comments to: pecoskid@juno.com

Teaching and Learning Modern Foreign Languages in the United Kingdom - Statutory and Non - Statutory

The National Curriculum for Modern foreign languages was updated in 1999, and aims towards giving "teachers, pupils, parents, employers and the wider community a clear and shared understanding of the skills and knowledge that young people will gain at school" (National curriculum, 2003:3).

The structure of the National Curriculum enables teachers to use this working document in order to inform their long-term, mid-term and short term planning. Amongst general guidelines, it contains a Programme of Study defined in the 1996 Education Act as "the matters, skills and processes that should be taught to pupils of different abilities and maturities during the key stage."(National Curriculum, 2003:6) Modern Languages Departments have the responsibility to decide on how they want this programme to be implemented, and this has to be detailed in their schemes of work for the various year groups.

The Programme of study features five mains strands to address in Key stage 3 and 4: students should acquire knowledge and understanding of the target language, develop languages skills, develop language-learning skills, develop cultural awareness and have a breadth of study. These strands are sub-divided in more specific points, which are no longer topic based, such as "pupils should be taught the principle of interrelationship of sounds and writing in the target language" ( National Curriculum, 2003:16).

The National Curriculum also includes attainment targets and level descriptors which should help to assess the performance of students uniformly across the country. The 1996 Education Act, section 353a, defines the attainment target for Modern Foreign Languages as the "knowledge, skills and understanding that pupils of different abilities and maturities are expected to have by the end of each key stage". Attainment targets across the curriculum consist of eight level descriptors, which describe the range of abilities and knowledge that students should have when they reach that level. For all the core subjects started in primary school, students have already been assessed using these levels; therefore, secondary schools are provided with prior data for each student new to a school. However, as languages are not statutory in primary school, secondary Modern Foreign Languages teachers are not provided with any information concerning students' prior learning. This implies that in Year 7 students are in mixed ability groups, amongst which some students have already practised languages, and some other have had no connection with a foreign language. Planning the lessons to suit the needs and skills of each individual student within the group is extremely difficult to achieve.

The National Curriculum promotes cross- curricular teaching and learning in various areas such as spiritual, moral and social and cultural development, key skills and thinking skills. It stresses the importance of the National Literacy strategy, a statutory strategy across the curriculum since 2000, as "Pupils should be taught in all subjects to express themselves correctly and appropriately and to read accurately and with understanding" (Literacy Strategy, 37:2000). Literacy has to be part of a whole school approach, and roles and responsibilities are clearly dispatched throughout the staff. The task of the director of learning is to monitor that the policy is implemented, in each department, and he gives guidance to all the staff as how to teach literacy. Each department is expected to identify literacy skills to focus on, in their department and include suitable strategies in the schemes of work. Indeed, Modern Foreign Languages are directly linked with literacy skills, as pupils are taught a foreign language, mainly through their knowledge of their native language. Besides, Hawkins suggests (1996: 21) that "one of the most effective ways of understanding the structure of a language is to compare it with the structure of another language".

Schools have the obligation to provide a broad and balanced curriculum for all their students. This is one of the key general teaching requirements in England. All students must have equal learning opportunities. There are three main principles for inclusion that teachers need to remember when planning their lessons: setting suitable learning challenge, responding to pupils' varied learning needs, and providing manageable assessments. Every child has to be treated as an individual, with his pace, needs and desire.

Researches have shown that "subject choice differs in single sex schools from that in mixed schools, and this may relate to boys' perceived susceptibility to peer pressure... in single sex setting, boys were more keen on languages than in their counterparts in mixed-sex schools" (Morgan and Neil, 2001: 133). If the boys are often achieving well in Year 7 and 8 in languages, it seems that they become disaffected in favour of subjects seen as more masculine, like sciences, from Year 9 onwards. Boys are usually more participating orally, during a lesson. The National Curriculum states that "to ensure that they meet the full range of pupils' needs, teachers should be aware of the requirements of the equal opportunities legislation, that covers race, gender, and disability" (National Curriculum, 2003: 21). The laws states that teachers should know about are The Sex Discrimination Act, 1975, The Race Relation Act, 1976, and the Disability Discrimination Act, 1995.

On the web site "Teacher Net" regarding equal opportunities and education it is said that "Schools must broaden the opportunities for all pupils to reach their individual potential. The objective is not equality in the absolute sense of everybody achieving the same, but the removal of what are often referred to as "barriers" to educational success."

II. 2. The National Strategy for England; Languages for all: Languages for life

II.2.a. Rationale

"In the knowledge society of the 21st century, language competence and intercultural understanding are not optional extras; they are an essential part of being a citizen. For too long we have lagged behind as a nation in our capability to contribute fully as multi-lingual and culturally aware citizens. Likewise, in the global economy too few employees have the necessary skills to be able to engage fully in international business, and too few employers support their employees in gaining additional language skills as part of their jobs" (Dfes, 2002:5). This statement made by the Department for Education and Skills certifies their knowledge and understanding of their countries rocky relationship with Modern Foreign Languages. Their answer to this issue is "The National Strategy for England; Languages for All: languages for life" was published on the 18th of December 2002. This document sets out the Government's plans to transform the countries abilities and views about languages.

The Nuffield Languages Inquiry, ordered by the Government in 1999, has established, as explained earlier, that the Government did not have a coherent approach to languages, and that there was no continuity in the initiatives concerning Modern Foreign Languages from primary school to university.

It is to address this issue and several others raised in the Nuffield Inquiry Final Report that the Government published primarily a Green Paper 14-19 entitled "Languages Learning: Extending opportunity, raising standards" in February 2002. This Green Paper lays the foundations to the National Languages Strategy published later that year. The proposals in this text focus on various concerns that the Government proposes to work upon; entitle students in primary school to study a language by 2012, increase the number of Languages Colleges, augment the number of people studying languages in further and higher education, increase the number of persons teaching languages, and work towards recognition of languages by society in England.

II.2.b Aims and strategies

The audit that the Government made in December 2002 embraces many issues and is extremely straightforward. They are fully aware of the crisis that languages have undergone in the previous 30 years. Their purpose is to change the perception that the nation has about languages and they are conscious that this will not be an easy challenge.

They decided to focus on creating an entitlement to languages for all pupils at Key Stage 2. "Every child should have the opportunity throughout Key Stage 2 to study a language and develop their interest in culture of other nations. They should have access to high quality teaching and learning opportunities, making use of native speakers and e-learning. By age 11 they should have the opportunity to reach a recognised level of competence in the Common European Framework and for that achievement to be recognised through a national scheme." (Dfes, 2002:15). This involves many constraints which are already listed in the National Strategy, but the Government also suggests pathways to achieve this long term project, which should be operational nationally by 2012. To deliver these lessons, primary school teachers who show interest in Modern Foreign Languages will be trained.

Furthermore, incentives will be given for language specialists to train for the primary level. Schools could also share a specialist teacher within a catchment's area. Furthermore, the Government advises to use members of the wider community demonstrating abilities in languages, and train them to teach at Key Stage 2 level. Specialist Languages Colleges should share best practice with their primary school colleagues, by doing outreach work. As the results obtained for National examination by students' attending Specialist Languages School prove to have improved tremendously, the National Strategy advocates increasing the number of schools having this Specialist status from 157 in 2002 to 200 by 2005. This also means that these schools, as they offer a varied range of languages have more staff within their Modern Foreign Languages department. One of the consequences which, is directly linked to the Strategy is that these schools are able to offer their competences to the local community. This can improve the perspective that a whole area has about languages.

Likewise, Advanced Skills Teachers are teachers who have been identified by Local Education Authorities, as outstanding professional within their specialist subjects will be involved in helping primary schools colleagues. Their role consists already in providing support to schools where either the exam results are very low, or in departments undergoing structural difficulties.

In order to increase the number of students taking up languages after 16, the Government insists on improving teaching and learning at KS3 and KS4. Students need to develop better abilities, and achieve better in order to be willing to carry on studying a language at a higher level. The curriculum needs to be increasingly flexible and the range of routes for learning language during the 14-19 phase should expand. The decrease in the number of pupils studying one language or more at A level has obviously had an impact on the provision for languages at universities. However, the National Strategy puts on emphasis on new courses offered which are joined degrees in a language and a more practical skill. Sixty new degrees which embed a language and business, management or tourism have been developed in the past few years. The objective of this specific part of the National Strategy tailors to the needs expressed by industries. Indeed, professionals admit that they lack of competent linguists on their rolls. Often, the proficiency that employees have, does not allow them to carry out a business conversation with a potential European partner. Some companies even admitted that they lost some business opportunities due to the incompetence of their staff in languages.

To motivate adults and to give credit to people for their languages skills, the Government wants to develop a national, voluntary recognition system, to supplement existing qualifications. They plan for the general public to be able to self-assess and record their achievements by using ICT. The Nuffield Feasibility Study commissioned in 2001 suggested the development of "Learning Ladder for Languages" which could be used to recognise and define language proficiency. However, there would be a possibility to take a test for people who would like to gain a certification.

II.2.c. Languages at Key Stage 4

The Green Paper "Languages Learning: Extending opportunity, raising standards" takes also a route that seems to be contradicting all the other educational reforms proposed to improve the status of languages in the United Kingdom within this specific document. "We do intend to amend the statutory requirements at Key Stage 4 so that schools will no longer be required to teach Modern Foreign Languages to all pupils. All schools will be required to ensure as a minimum that they are available to any pupil wishing to study them" (Dfes, 2002: 26).

This statement was the first step in which the Government revealed its intention. It was followed by the creation of a Working Group for 14-19 Reform, chaired by Sir Mike Tomlison. A final report was published in October 2004. The Working Group set out a whole new vision for the future of languages learning in Britain, starting the learning process early, by teaching Modern Foreign Languages at Key Stage 2 and entitling students to more flexibility and choice, especially for the 14 to 19 years old.

This decision implies that Modern Foreign Languages becomes a requirement as schools have to cater for each individual student, but also an option. All students in the United Kingdom are given the opportunity to decide in Year 9 whether they want to carry on studying a language. It is not longer a core subject alongside Maths, Science, and English. The status that Modern Foreign Languages had since the 1996 reform "Languages for All" has been completely transformed. This governmental decision has had a huge impact on the Modern Foreign Languages teachers' community.

The Government is prone to develop the vocational strand of education, and for students to undertake work related learning during Key Stage 4. Modern Foreign Languages are also part of this process, as some new qualifications are developed and currently tested in pilot school. An alternative to the traditional GCSE French is worked upon by the examining body Edexcel. This new generation exam is called GCSE in applied French. The objective of this qualification is to enable students to develop skills which can be applied to professional context such as business, tourism, media and communication. Students are assessed by sitting external examination, which are mainly ICT based. There are 60 pilot schools across the United Kingdom testing this revolutionary exam, and the first formal examination will take place in 2006.

II.2.d. Implementation

Most of the aspects of the National Strategy for Languages are an on-going process that should have reached its climax by 2012, when all primary schools will be expected to provide languages lessons to their pupils. However, in order to launch this Strategy the Government invested £1.2 million to start a Modern Foreign Languages pilot. This was to provide a Framework of teaching objectives and guidance, training and network meeting. An additional investment of £10 million was planned by 2005/2006 to sustain the Strategy. The funding is to be allocated to introduce the primary school entitlement, to increase of the number of Modern Foreign Languages teachers, to provide staff training and development, to promote best practice and to develop international partnerships.

A National Director for Languages was appointed to overview, expand and deliver the Strategy. The Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research lead by Dr Lid King plays also a major role in the implementation of the Strategy. Their knowledge of the evolution of the educational system and also their link with professional makes them a valuable source of information and advice. Local Education Authorities should support the Government in the application of the Strategy. They are closer to schools and communities and are able to obtain more easily feedback about how the decisions are perceived and implemented.

The success of the "Languages for All: Languages for Life; a Strategy for England" is to be measured against a set of outcomes amongst which, whether the needs of businesses are met, and whether the standards of teaching are better at all Key Stages. Other factors that will validate the fulfillment of the scheme are the increase of the demands for adults' language learning, the flexibility of the routes into learning a Modern Foreign Language, and more importantly the quality of the entitlement provided at Key Stage 2.

II. 3. Framework for Teaching Modern Foreign Languages: Years 7, 8 and 9

The Framework for Teaching Modern Foreign Languages is designed to support most languages taught at Key Stage 3. It is built on a similar pattern to the framework for Primary Schools, which is a recent scheme to enhance the level of achievement of students in English at Primary School level by creating a Literacy hour. This Hour consists in teaching the whole class for 75% of the time, and is shared in 10 minutes of reviewing, consolidating and introducing new objectives, 15 minutes of work on the word level, and 15 minutes on reading and writing. The remaining 25% of the time is dedicated to group work on guided tasks or independent work. The lesson ends up by a plenary session which is included in the time dedicated to the whole class work. This way of managing time appears to set a routine and makes it easier for pupils to make the transition from one year group to the next. A similar framework exists for English at Key Stage 3, which means that the government wishes to bridge the gap between primary and secondary school education.

The National Framework for Modern Foreign Languages is a non statutory document published in spring 2003 and was available nationally from September 2003. The Government provided training for all Modern Foreign Languages colleagues from autumn 2003. In order to achieve this necessity to train all teachers the government provided money to supply cover teachers.

II.3.a. Aims and objectives

"The framework and its objectives are designed to give teachers a mental map of languages learning over Key Stage 3. The framework should not be seen as a dry menu of linguistics. The grammar is not a separate heading but is to support work at various levels. A key function of the Modern Foreign Languages Framework is to encourage a rethink of where the emphasis should be in languages teaching and learning." (Dfes, 2003:16). The purpose of this framework is to raise standards by improving the quality of teaching and learning.

The teaching has to be focused by planning lessons according to objectives and ensure pupils are fully aware of those. Students need to be challenged and teachers therefore have to set high expectations so that students try to surpass their current level of achievement. The learning needs are to be structured with lessons beginning with a starter activity to catch students' attention as soon as they enter the classroom. Then, they should be a variety of activities delivered with pace. The lesson should end up with a plenary to ascertain whether the objectives have been met and provide formative assessment in order to inform the planning of subsequent lessons. The learning needs to be motivating and engaging by integrating fun activities where appropriate. Teachers should seek students' ability to do independent learning by providing frames and learning strategies. It is also necessary to build pupils' reflection by teaching them to think about what they learn and how they do so. They have to be involved in setting themselves targets whilst they expand their learning. Pupils have to be more aware of the curriculum. It needs to be more accessible so that students are engaged in their learning, and become independent in doing so.

There are five main strands within this Framework which are a focus on the word level, the sentence level, reading and writing, listening and speaking and cultural knowledge and contact. It moves away from topic dependence to concentrate on the skills students need to develop in order to apprehend a language and to master it.

The Framework systematically builds progression and is designed to give the teaching and learning focus for each year; Year 7: foundation, Year 8: acceleration and Year 9: independence. The training programme provides guidance to teachers and Heads of Modern Foreign Languages departments on planning schemes of work, which should be amended and strengthened but not necessarily rewritten.

In the United Kingdom, teachers at different stages of their career are involved in writing schemes of work. This enables them to have a better knowledge of the curriculum. Using the Schemes of Work published as a guidance by the Department for Education and Skills, and merging them with the ones produced by publishers, teachers manage to create a working document that is suitable to their department needs, but which is also respecting the governmental guidelines concerning the Key Stage 3 Strategy and Programme of Study.

II.3.c. Cross curricular themes

The framework strongly recommends a link between school subjects in order to provide students with transferable skills and effective learning strategies. Numeracy, Literacy, Citizenship, and a coherent assessment policy are to be developed in the various subjects in order to increase each student's potential.

"Numeracy is a proficiency which is developed mainly in Mathematics but also in other subjects. It is more than an ability to do simple arithmetic. It involves developing confidence and competence with numbers and measures. It requires understanding of the number system, a repertoire of mathematical techniques and an inclination and ability to solve quantitative or spatial system in a range of contexts. Numeracy also demands understanding of the way in which data is gathered by counting and measuring, and presented in graphs, diagrams, charts and tables." (DfEE 2001a: 1.9)

Teaching a Modern Foreign Language includes teaching the culture of the countries where the language is spoken. There are various ways in which Numeracy and cultural dimension are merging, as for instance, asking students to read the 24-hour clock, which is the tradition in continental Europe. Often, in role plays, pupils are asked to tell their phone number, which works in pairs in France, and this implies a lot of concentration, as naturally they would be tempted to read the numbers one by one. The postcodes as well are built up differently. Talking about the weather can become an opportunity to use maths, as you can ask the pupils to change from Fahrenheit to Celsius.

"All secondary school teachers have a responsibility to teach key skills in addition to their own subject" (Tanner, Jones and Davies, 2002: 189). If the bridge to be made between Numeracy and Modern Foreign Languages does not appear obvious at first, a thorough knowledge of the curriculum and schemes of work prove the link that Modern Foreign Languages departments managed to build in their teaching. Therefore they respect the government guidelines, but also fulfill their responsibilities as teacher, that is not only teaching a subject but also teaching learning tools.

Literacy is integral to all learning. Every school in the United Kingdom is supposed to have its own Literacy policy. It has to be part of a whole school approach, and roles and responsibilities are clearly dispatched throughout the staff. The task of the director of learning is to monitor that the policy is implemented, in each department, and he gives guidance to all the staff as how to teach literacy. Each department is expected to identify literacy skills to focus on in their department and include suitable strategies in the schemes of work.

Most school policies group four main skills, that is to say speaking, listening, reading and writing, which form the foundation to elaborate principles and precise targets in working upon literacy. For example, pupils should be taught in all subjects to express themselves correctly and to read accurately and with understanding.

Indeed, Modern Foreign Languages are in direct link with literacy skills, as pupils are taught a foreign language mainly throughout their knowledge of their native language. Besides Hawkins suggests (1996: 21) that "one of the most effective ways of understanding the structure of a language is to compare it with the structure of another language". Examples of elements studied in a language classroom should highlight this idea: basic and advanced grammar skills, grammatical terminology, parts of speech, sentence construction, listening for gist and detail, guess the meaning of a word thanks to the context, ability to use a dictionary and glossaries. In addition pupils are encouraged to read for their own pleasure from KS3 onwards.

Most of these activities are included in the Programme of Study for Modern Foreign Languages. Furthermore, the National Curriculum for Modern Foreign Languages says simply and clearly that "Since standard English, spoken and written, is the predominant language in which knowledge and skills are taught and learned, pupils be taught to recognise and use standard English", even if on another hand, target language should be used as often as possible. Also, in the same source, there are specific references to the English programme of study in the areas of grammar, drafting written work and knowing the technical vocabulary of a language (DfEE / QCA, 1999: 16 17).

"Citizenship gives pupils the knowledge, skills and understanding to play an effective role in society, at local, national and international levels. It helps them to become informed, thoughtful and responsible citizens, who are aware of their duties and their rights... it also teaches them about our economy and democratic institutions and values; encourages respect for different national, religious and ethnic identities; develops pupil's ability to reflect on issues and take part in discussions." (DfEE / QCA, 1999:183)

The Programme of Study for Citizenship divides in three strands, which are:

- Knowledge and understanding about becoming informed citizens.

- Developing skills of enquiry and communication

- Developing skills of participation and responsible actions.

Each school decides to deliver the statutory and/or non-statutory guidelines for Citizenship, Careers Education and PSHCE in a way that suits them best. In Modern Foreign Languages, several topics can lead to conversations about citizenship. In Year 7, it is already possible to include the concept of "citizen of the world", when pupils are taught Nationalities. In Year 9, pupils learn about the environment. It can lead to a debate about what they should do to "save the planet". In Year 13, pupils talk about global matters like politics and racism. They are about to be allowed to vote, and preparing them to the topic "Crime and Punishment" for instance, is a good opportunity to make them think about their own country, through comparing it to France or Germany.

"Assessment is a crucial part of the teaching process... it enables the teacher to gauge whether what has been taught has in fact been learnt by the students. It provides information for the student on his/ her progress. It provides information for the parents". (Morgan and Neil, 2001: 107).

At the start of a lesson, pupils need to be set clear objectives, in order to know and understand the purpose of their learning. At the end of the lesson, teachers have to check whether these objectives have been met. Plenary activities are useful in this matter, as it is often a way of reinforcing the learning but also evaluating pupils.

The teacher training provided in The United Kingdom advises teachers to set differentiated learning outcomes in three different strands. There are to be expectations for "some students", which represent more or less the top third of the pupils in a class, and the goals are higher. The group labelled "most students" are the average pupils in term of achievement. Teachers should be more lenient for some pupils experiencing difficulties in learning a new language, or pupil having special educational needs. They belong to the last group entitled "all students" on a lesson plan. "Formative assessment is an ongoing assessment, conducted at regular intervals by the classroom teacher. It enables the teacher to take stock of what the students have learned". (Morgan and Neil, 2001: 107).

Four main ways of assessing have been listed in Teaching Modern Foreign Languages, Morgan and Neil, 2001: 108 "diagnostic assessment...used usually to identify particular areas requiring work....evaluative assessment is based on feelings and experience rather than objective criteria... motivational assessment is designed to provide learners with short-term achievable goals...summative assessment is the final stage assessment and the term is usually applied to end of key stage tests or GCSE."

Assessment is vital to ensure an effective learning for pupils. Formal written assessment seems the easiest to handle as it leaves to the teacher more time to think about the performance as he marks the paper. Listening and speaking appear to be more difficult to assess. Every school has its own marking policy and tries to be consistent across the subjects. In school X, students' book have to be marked every 2 weeks, giving a grade for effort which can be excellent, very good, good, unsatisfactory or weak; and awarding a mark for the content between 1 and 5, 1 representing 90% or more of the task completed accurately. This way of assessing students' work is used to grade their homework or class work. This enables teachers, alongside with end of unit assessment, to give students a level of achievement, and to set for them long and short term targets.

Teachers are provided with loads of prior data concerning each student in their groups. Students in the United Kingdom take various formal assessments, and schools are provided with Software which manages to infer predicted grades for examination such as GCSE thanks to the results students obtained at these tests done in Year 7. These predictions are said to be rather accurate and students are aware of them.

Cynthia Frey, Masters in English Language, Literature and Culture, and PGCE educational adviser in Egypt, Head of French Department, Teacher of French and German.

Challenges Associated With Long Term US Presence Advising Foreign Nations

Since our birth as a nation, we have been involved with providing advice to foreign governments. This advice ranges across the spectrum from Diplomatic to economics to judicial, to conservation, to military. Anything one can think up that requires nations to engage each other requires some sort of advice giving. From a military standpoint, the strategic (i.e.-warfighting) to the operational (i.e.-how things are employed in warfighting) to the tactical (i.e. - individual and small unit employment) are the types of advice most often given. Their significance cannot be emphasized enough. At any given moment across the globe, their are individuals representing the US Government, providing advice to these foreign governments. Some of them work in teams and some alone. Some are high ranking officers and some are lower ranking, Non Commissioned Officers. These individuals, typically, live for long periods of time embedded with their counterparts and may develop close relationships with them. This causes a unique relationship to be developed between the advisor and those he is attempting to advise. It also causes some concern for the protection of sensitive information. Most advisors have access to some sort of classified information. Some is releasable to their counterparts and some may not be. How do they protect what is not releasable from compromise or espionage? They will also have access to sensitive information produced by their counterparts. What do they do with this information? These are some of the questions I hope to be able to answer.

The risk of compromise is greater for advisors who live long term with foreign counterparts than it is for others that hold clearances. The clearance adjudication process has a guideline specifically for foreign influence. However, the foreign influence implicated the most is family and there are others. The government should have a vetting process, outside the normal security clearance process, to vet potential advisors before they act in this capacity.

What is it that advisors do and what makes the job hazardous as far as protecting information is concerned? Advisors live and work with an assigned unit and/or counterpart(s) for long periods of time. They may be an advisor to an individual or they may advise a group of individuals that work in a specific area or have responsibility for a specific area. The typical military advisor is assigned to this job for at least one year but may serve longer. Those that function most efficiently in this environment are those that have worked overseas engaged with foreign nationals previously. Advisors are embedded in every way with those they advise. They eat, sleep, work and relax when their counterparts do and in accordance with their schedules. In most cases, there are no other American personnel nearby. This causes a unique relationship to develop between the American and his counterpart. If he is not well trained and experienced, he may become victim to varying degrees on culture shock and, often, suffers from a variation of "Stockholm Syndrome". Over long periods of time, he becomes more and more at risk of accepting the ideology and, conceivably, even loyalty to his counterparts.

What do advisors do that puts them at risk? Simply put, they have access to sensitive information that must be safeguarded. From a US standpoint, not all information that an advisor has access to is suitable for their counterparts. From a counterpart standpoint, they have information that they do not want the US to have access to. Often times, this causes a shell game to be played by the advisor in his attempt to protect what he should and share what he can. Though not a particularly dangerous shell game, it is one that can cause a loss of rapport with his counterparts if not played expertly. This is extremely important as rapport is the backbone of any good advisor relationship.

Being an advisor is an incredibly complex and nuanced job. One is asked to do things completely outside the scope of normal, day to day activities. An advisor must use all techniques at his disposal to convince his counterparts to do the things that he, the advisor, thinks needs to occur. Any good advisor spends at least the first few weeks assessing his counterparts. He must determine strengths and weaknesses without alerting his counterparts. Working with other cultures is a sensitive job. Even though counterparts must always know the extent of the mission and purpose of the advisor, it is often a tough pill to swallow to have an "advice giver". One might say that the unit/counterpart is fortunate to have garnered the attention of the US Government sufficiently to acquire a personal advisor. However, not all counterparts see it this way. Many view their advisors as sanctioned spies or, at best, hindrances to the way operations are normally conducted.

Working as an advisor creates an environment where a unique set of dynamics comes into people for both parties. T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) wrote his famous "Twenty Seven Articles" in 1917 which have become sacrosanct of the modern advisor as these tips are still accurate today. First, advisors have no positional authority over their counterparts. T. E. Lawrence's tip number three (As quoted in Ramsey, n.d.) states:

"3. In matters of business deal only with the commander of the army, column, or party in which you serve. Never give orders to anyone at all, and reserve your directions or advice for the C.O., however great the temptation (for efficiency's sake) of dealing with his underlings. Your place is advisory, and your advice is due to the commander alone. Let him see that this is your conception of your duty, and that his is to be the sole executive of your joint plans. (p. 4)."

As the above quote demonstrates, advisors are exactly what their name indicates, a consultant. It is up to their counterparts to make decisions and issue orders and, in fact, this is the end result desired from the advisor viewpoint. We do the counterpart no good if we usurp his authority even though, at times, it may seem the right course to take. Second, the counterpart has no real authority over the advisor. The fact that there is an advisor present is usually because of a much higher level agreement between militaries. This can cause an adversarial relationship, especially if there is asymmetry between ranks. In my particular case, I was a senior warrant officer advising a General officer. While I was able to work past the difference in rank, it took time and lot of hard work on my part to get through the indifference. Third, the advisor tends to be able to circumvent some bureaucracy, due to his access to higher levels of command. The senior military officer at a US Embassy is normally a Colonel (O-6). His counterparts are the host countries most senior officers. The advisor tends to have the ear, directly, of the senior military officer who has the ear of the host countries military command. This can work both in favor (cutting through bureaucracy) or against (fear caused by counterparts knowing of this access) the advisor.

There are many challenges associated with advisor work. The advisor must be versed in both his culture and the host nation's culture. He must understand who commands him and where he stands within the hierarchy of his host. He has to know when to provide input and when not to. He must know how input is accepted amongst his counterparts. He needs to know when, where and how to apply pressure and when not. He needs to know what support the US government is willing to give and how far to take it. He must know when to coerce and when not to. While most military organizations have some sort of interaction with foreign nationals, they do so from a position of strength. They have something that the foreign representative wants. This could be security, food, housing or any numerous other things. An advisor offers none of this. On the contrary, he usually needs the host nation to house him, feed him and protect him. Under these conditions there must be some trade off. Otherwise, what is the motivation for the host nation entity involved to cooperate? Rapport and relationship building then becomes the greatest challenge.

Additional concerns are the legal issues involved. The Advisor tends to walk a gray area as far as the law is concerned. Not that there is not sufficient applicable law to govern what they do and how they conduct themselves. On the contrary, there is almost too much law. Military advisors are governed by International, US and HN laws. In most cases, an advisor is not likely to have all these different legal nuances explained to him, so it is incumbent upon him to conduct research. On the US side, it isn't so gray. All senior officers and non commissioned officers know of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and, generally, if one lives by this code, this is sufficient. There is the "Posse Comitatus Act" which prohibits military members (minus certain exceptions) from being used in a law enforcement capacity. There are the annual DOD Appropriations and Authorizations Acts which define the things that the DOD has the lead in conducting. However, what is the advisors status in the host nation? Is he considered a diplomat? Is he a member of the Administrative and Technical Staff? Is their a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between the host nation and the US?

Though not typically the case, he may have no legal status at all. It behooves the advisor to conduct research to, at least, discover the international laws that have been agreed upon between the US and the Host nation and seek legal advice (always available to military personnel). At a minimum, there will be local rules and regulations as well as social mores that he will have to identify and seek to conform to. Every installation or military camp will have its own set of rules that the advisor would be wise to follow. Nothing will cause a loss of rapport quicker than blatant disregard for the Host Nations rules, regulations, customs and courtesies.

Military Advisors are assigned to work as advisors in areas that are of interest to the US. Since they live with their counterparts, they are exposed to their counterpart's sensitive information. In many instances, they are the only US representative in the region. In most cases, they have access to US classified information that may or may not be releasable to their counterparts. The advisor, often, does not have the appropriate containers authorized to store classified information, so he is often forced to carry it on his person at all times. This can be rather cumbersome and often forces the advisor to avoid classified information.

The greatest risk, however, remains his constant exposure to the constant queries from his counterpart for US information. In many instances, his counterpart may be a foreign intelligence officer. Additionally, advisors typically live in remote, austere camps where penetration from local insurgent groups or terrorists is likely or least plausible. These requests may seem benign, and most are, but the advisor can not afford to let his guard down either. The queries come so often that the advisor can become worn down by their insistence if he is not careful.

The most likely risk, however, is from the close relationship that develops between the advisor and his counterparts. After working for a long period of time, the advisor may become complacent. He also will likely become friends, to a degree, with these individuals. It is a fair assumption to make, that, at least, the intelligence personnel he associates with always be attempting to garner whatever information they can from the advisor. The advisor must be aware of this at all time and guard against becoming overly friendly with his counterparts. Professionalism goes along way. In Colombia, we came to an agreement with the Military for separate housing to be provided at each installation, specifically to guard against this. We found that having some sanctuary that the advisor team could, at least occasionally, retire to went along way to resolving some of these issues.

Just as there are risks for the US Government, the host nation has risks. Military Advisors are embedded with their counterparts. In order to be a functional advisor, one needs to have complete access to all aspects of operations. Though this is necessary, it is not always immediate. Few counterparts will allow an advisor immediate access to what they feel is classified information and for the same reasons that we do not. They do not trust that the advisor will not compromise their operations. The advisor must employ human relations skills in order to build rapport and develop a trusting relationship with his counterparts. Access is gained over time, never immediate. My counterpart was a good natured, General officer who had worked most of his years in Southern Colombia and was a Special Forces Officer like myself. I had to build a friendly relationship with him before I could even think of talking about operations. This meant that I had to spend a lot of time talking to him, eating with him and providing all the ancillary help (logistics, information, etc) that I could. Slowly, but surely, our relationship developed into a very strong one. He would not travel anywhere without his American advisor and felt very proud that he had one assigned to him.

The salient point is that foreign nations, even allies, do not want us to have access to all their information any more than we do. Even though foreign nations often safeguard information differently than we do, an advisor has to be very careful not to compromise his relationship over access to information. An advisor may be expected by his US command to garner information, but this must be resisted to the extent that the relationship is not compromised. All it takes is one incident involving trust and the advisor can longer function during his tour.

Another risk, and not an insignificant one, is the espionage threat that exists from the supported nations intelligence services. Advisors are at a greater risk than most others as they are embedded with the foreign unit. In most cases the advisors counterparts are, at least, the Commander, the Operations Officer (S/G/J-3) and the Intelligence Officer (S/G/J-2). I started out as an advisor to a Joint Task Force (JTF), so these three were my principal counterparts. Since the J-2 was one of my counterparts, it meant that I had to advise members of the entire J-2. This ranged from analysts to their counterintelligence officer. The advisor needs to keep an especially close eye on the later and attempt to persuade him that the advisor is not a threat. His purpose is to protect the unit and their military, essentially, from the advisor (among others). His advice to the J-2 on releasability alone caused me a significant amount of extra time and work trying to break down barriers. The J-2 is the senior intelligence representative that an advisor works with and, thus, has the most potential for being an espionage threat. They constantly, and seemingly innocently, probe the advisor for information. The advisor has an obligation to safeguard government information. His relationship and isolation make this an especially challenging job. The advisor must be constantly aware of his role and remember that, no matter how friendly they may be or what kind of relationship develops, they are still a foreign nation. It is the nature of the game for the counterpart to attempt to collect information from the advisor He must be constantly aware that this will occur and be somewhat guarded. He must learn to strike a balance between seeming aloof and building rapport.

The US Military has a reputation for wanting quick answers for everything. Reports on progress are constantly demanded, pressuring the advisor to "fill in the blanks". They are told, on the one hand, that they must allow their counterparts to command while they advise. However, US Commanders demand results and become impatient when they don't get them. Advisors are often put into a precarious position. Command and report or be viewed as an ineffective advisor (Ramsey, n.d., p.18).

What does all of this mean and what can be done to protect US government sensitive information? First, individuals that are to be assigned as advisors need advisor unique training. Aside from cultural awareness and orientation training, advisors need specific training on the importance of protecting classified information from espionage. They need to be informed on how foreign intelligence agencies work and what to be aware of. Further, advisors should receive special training on anti-elicitation techniques. How to respond to serious and detailed question asking is not intuitive. They need to be able to understand and recognize collection efforts directed against them and be able to react in such a way as to not divulge information while maintaining there position within the hierarchy without losing rapport. Finally, advisors should attempt to acquire separate living arrangements. They should not be superior to their counterparts, but should be separate. It is important for the advisor to have his own space so he can decompress from the foreign culture and collection efforts that surround him. Advisors should be assigned as teams, instead of individuals, where possible as he needs to be able to take a break and reconnect with US social mores and values.

Being an advisor can be a unique and rewarding experience. However, the potential for espionage is great. The US government should be proactive in assigning and training advisors in order to better prepare them for this experience. A pre-screening interview in order to determine the loyalty of an individual or psychiatric evaluations should be considered as advisors are currently assigned throughout the world engaging foreign forces of all types. We would be well advised to take the advisor role seriously.

References

Ramsey, R. (n.d.). Advice for Advisors: Suggestions and Observations from Lawrence to Present. Global War on Terrorism, Occasional paper 19. KS: Combat Studies Institute Press. Retrieved on 4 September, 2007 from [http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/ramsey_op19.pdf]

Ramsey, R. (n.d.). Advising Indigenous Forces: American Advisors in Korea, Vietnam and El Salvador. Global War on Terrorism, Occasional Paper 18. KS: Combat Studies Institute Press. Retrieved on 4 September, 2007 from [http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/ramsey.pdf]

John C Haywood is a soon to be retired Army Special Forces Senior Warrant Officer. He has spent most of his Special Operations career deploying around the world, especially in Latin America. He moved to Colombia in 2002 as an advisor to a Colombian Counter Narcotics Joint Task Force where he worked in the field for fifteen months. He then moved to Bogotá where he became the Action Officer for US Southern Command's Planning Assistance Training Team (PATT) where he planned, organized and executed the program and then became the senior tactical advisor and operations officer until the summer of 2006. He is currently employed as a Doctrine Writer at the US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School and is retiring from the Army this summer after twenty five years in service.