RMA - BDLC

LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS:AAP-16 WG OVERVIEW

BILC VARNA – October 2010

Marc Isselé

AAP-16 WG Overview

TWEEDE LANDSTAAL

AAP-16 WG Overview

AAP-16 WG Overview

ITEM 9

ENHANCING INTEROPERABILITYIssues regarding English language

requirements in NATO JDs

AAP-16 WG Overview

Introduction (Philip Turner)

- Some personnel do not meet set SLP- True levels 3 & 4 difficult to achieve- SLP set in JS without expert scrutiny- Not enough guidance in STANAG 6001- LNA =>SLP need to be reviewed- Current requirements:

- 3333 = 42% of posts- 3322 = 30%- 4444 = less than 1%

- BILC should provide simplified guidance

AAP-16 WG Overview

MIKE ADUBATO- SLP levels set are too high

Jean Paul van den Heede- Current situation too complex- SLP levels at realistic level => training cost focused- SLP 5 completely unreachable => 4 as top level

AAP-16 WG Overview

1) JOB DESCRIPTIONS:

- Not possible for individual cases- Levels corresponding to rank and function

- So : NCOs : 2222

officers : 3333

OF-4 & OF5 : 4444

- JD to be established by Hr managers AND linguists

AAP-16 WG Overview

1) JOB DESCRIPTIONS - REMARKS

- Serious financial, administrative, educational effort

- Straight 3 not always necessary

- Exact JD = long term project

AAP-16 WG Overview

2) SLP LEVELS

- Need to differentiate levels better

- Level 5 to be omitted

- If 4 highest : upgrade of 2 & 3

- Too many straight (11) & mixed (42) levels

- Rather mixed levels (3232) than plus levels

- Need to simplify descriptors

AAP-16 WG Overview

AAP-16 WG Overview

AAP-16 WG Overview

3) SLP TESTS

- Only mandatory if properly assessed

- Same SLP = very heterogeneous language capacities

- Uniformity in testing and evaluating

- REMARK : BAT

AAP-16 WG Overview

4) GENERAL REMARKS

- Problem of level 4

- Overinflation of SLP requirements

- Better contacts BILC – HR managers- POC needed

AAP-16 WG Overview

PROBLEM

What is asked for must be achievable

What is achieved must be realistic

QUESTIONS?