National Resource Centers Program Director Interview Protocol

Public Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number, xxxx-xxxx. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is voluntary. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Amy Wilson, U.S. Department of Education, International and Foreign Language Education, 1990 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20006-8521 or email amy.wilson@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number xxxx-xxxx.

NRC Program Director Interview Protocol

Introduction

The Office of International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is conducting an assessment of the National Resource Centers (NRC) Program. As part of this assessment, we are interviewing program directors about various aspects of project outcomes, evaluation, and sustainability. Your input is critical to understanding the degree to which the NRC program is helping to improve the foreign language capacity and international and area studies understanding in the United States and how best to structure ongoing data collection and evaluation of the NRC program.

DATA/REPORTING QUESTIONS

1. In what year did you last enter data into the International Resource Information System (IRIS) for your Center? (e.g., Calendar Year)

2. Do you recall approximately how long (e.g., hours) it took you and your Center staff to compile the necessary data and enter it into the system? (interim report; final report)

3. From your recollection, were the kinds of data required in IRIS useful to understanding your Center’s successes and areas in need of improvement? Please describe the benefits and/or shortcomings of the data currently collected in IRIS.

4. Please talk about the kinds of IRIS data or evidence that have been the most useful in understanding the successes and areas for improvement of your Center. Are there other data that IRIS does not currently collect that would be useful?

5. What do you consider the greatest successes of your Center in improving the foreign language capacity and international and area studies understanding in the United States? What kinds of data or evidence are available to showcase these?

6. What aspects or activities initiated with past NRC funding have been continued with non-NRC support?

7. In what ways do you use data to encourage continued financial and other types of support for your Center?

8. Do you use data (reported in IRIS or elsewhere) to leverage additional funding for your Center? If so, how?

9. Do you feel your data clearly show your Center’s effectiveness? Why or Why not?

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT QUESTIONS

1. What data present the most compelling case for continued federal (Title VI) program funding based on demonstrating the merit of the NRC program?

2. What about the current structure of the NRC program works best to improve the foreign language capacity and international and area studies understanding in the United States? What aspects hinder these efforts? What challenges do you face with your Center as a result of the current NRC program structure?

3. If you could change three things about the NRC program, what would they be?

1