Given the questions and concerns that have been raised in relation to LOTE, it is appropriate to ask whether the current model of provision can ever produce better results in terms of language learning, regardless of the amount of funding that is injected into it. One of the issues that emerged during the course of the Review was the extent to which Commonwealth funding for the teaching of languages in schools should be designed to improve the level of student outcomes in a specific Key Learning Area, viz. LOTE, or whether the only rationale for this funding should be to enable providers to fulfil nationally agreed targets and priorities that just happen to fall within one Key Learning Area.
It is possible to mount an argument that continuing to fund LOTE as a separate element is grasping the wrong end of the stick. The heart of this argument derives from an emerging consideration of why we believe that students should learn a LOTE. As discussed above, while there is merit in all of the reasons advanced as to why students should study a LOTE, there is now little support for the study of LOTE for its own sake, or for the purely economic rationale or instrumental outcomes that are assumed to have largely driven NALSAS. Rather, there is an emerging consensus that the key rationale for learning a language other than English is to acquire and develop knowledge and skills for intercultural understanding and engagement. This consensus incorporates the belief that learning for the fullest possible economic, cultural and social participation should enable people to have greater understanding of and engagement with the wider global community and the many societies and cultures that constitute it.
By centring attention on intercultural understanding and engagement as the main focus, the question of “which LOTE” becomes largely irrelevant at the national level. The language or languages chosen for study become a local or regional issue.
While this scenario is gaining ground, it is not likely to become reality for the majority of Australian schools in the short term. It represents a massive cultural shift that would require considerable debate and discussion before any attempt to change the status quo would succeed.
Many respondents to this Review noted the need for a clearly articulated national policy stance. Many teachers, academics and systems representatives expressed increasing frustration by what they perceive to be an ever-changing policy focus. Indeed, there appears to be some confusion about whether there is in fact a current national policy, and what the continuing status of the designation of priority and community languages is.
There is a suggestion to establish a national body that could oversee the development of cohesive policy, fair practices, priority setting and coordination of resources and syllabuses. This body could also act as a facilitator of enhanced communication between the key stakeholders.
We believe that MCEETYA, through its taskforces, must ultimately accept responsibility for the strategic development of languages education in Australia. But there is also need for a wide range of stakeholders to provide advice in the development of national policy and strategic planning.
The time for mixed messages has passed. A strong positive statement on the role of LOTE in the curriculum must be the current priority. Firm and directed policy highlighting the benefits of LOTE in the school curriculum is the crux for any further development of LOTE. The uncertainly, instability and lack of apparent commitment by some jurisdictions, jeopardises the standing of LOTE in the educational community, among parents and students.
Changing this situation must focus attention on changing attitudes. A key policy consideration must therefore encompass understanding what shapes peoples’ attitudes to LOTE, and how they can be provided with compelling and tangible evidence of the benefits of students acquiring substantial second language competence.
If this direction is pursued, the next key policy question is what must be mandatory and what can be optional. Dimensions to be considered here include place of language, choice of language, starting point, duration and intensity of instruction, and place of instruction. Findings in relation to each of these dimensions have been discussed above. None of them have simple or obvious solutions. There may, in fact, not be a solution, suggesting that decisions about detail may best be left to the local level.