Languages other than English have long been part of the school curriculum in Australia, at least for some. However, the concept of “languages for all” is relatively new. While LOTE is accorded the status of one of eight Key Learning Areas in the National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty First Century, there are many who argue that structural, logistic and attitudinal issues limit the extent to which this policy has become reality.
Language use, language policy, and language education are closely linked to national selfperception. Australia’s socio-linguistic history can arguably be categorised as one of tension between the dominance of English on the one hand, and the social reality of multiculturalism and multilingualism on the other. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, assimilation – linguistic and otherwise – was the prevailing policy for both the indigenous population and the various waves of immigration. It was expected that immigrants would rapidly acquire English and abandon their first language (Clyne, 1997). Since the 1970s, pluralist and multicultural policies have held sway. However, the recent public policy debates about immigration, about our place in the Asia-Pacific region, and more recently, about international terrorism, demonstrate that these policies are not without tension, including tension in regard to languages teaching and learning.
In 1982, a bipartisan committee of Commonwealth parliamentarians was appointed to inquire into the needs for an explicit and comprehensive national languages policy, encompassing all aspects of all languages in Australia. The guiding principles of the report from that committee formed the basis of the National Policy on Languages (NPL) (Lo Bianco, 1987), which set out recommendations and implementation strategies for English and English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching, languages other than English (LOTE) and Aboriginal education, languages in the media and libraries, and research and curriculum development. It presented a rationale for maintaining and/or developing bilingualism in all Australians, based on a balance of social equity, cultural enrichment and economic strategies.
In the 1990s, economic strategies, rather than multiculturalism, became the dominant driver of Commonwealth language education policy. A new policy, the Australian Languages and Literacy Policy (ALLP) was introduced, which retained the earlier guiding principles of the NPL, but emphasized English Literacy and economicallymotivated second language learning, as well as socially motivated second language learning.
The four key goals of the ALLP were that:
- all Australians should develop and maintain effective literacy in English to enable them to participate in Australian society;
- the learning of languages other than English must be substantially expanded and improved to enhance educational outcomes and communication within both the Australian and the international community;
- those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages which are still transmitted should be maintained and developed, and those that are not should be recorded where appropriate;
- language services, provided by interpreters and translators, the print and electronic media and libraries, should be expanded and improved.
In subsequent iterations of the Commonwealth LOTE programme arising from the ALLP, a distinction was drawn between priority languages and community languages. Ten priority languages were identified: Chinese (Mandarin), French, German, Modern Greek, Indonesian, Japanese, Italian, Korean, Spanish, and Aboriginal languages.
Both the NPL and the ALLP were in fact Commonwealth policies rather than joint national policies with the States and Territories. A significant factor in LOTE policy and practice in Australia in the past eight years has been delivered through the NALSAS Strategy, which has supported Asian languages and studies in all school systems in order to improve Australia’s capacity and preparedness to interact internationally, in particular with Asian economies. There were four languages targeted under the Strategy: Chinese (Mandarin); Indonesian; Japanese and Korean. Studies of Asia, rather than being treated as a separate subject, was developed within key learning areas, in particular Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE), English and the Arts.
The NALSAS Strategy represented a truly national approach between the Commonwealth and States and Territories. All education authorities entered into bilateral agreements with the Commonwealth to work towards the Strategy’s objectives with Commonwealth funds and agreed to contribute equally from their own resources. The Commonwealth allocated funding for its share of the NALSAS Strategy from 1994 to 2002.,
From 2001 the differentiation between priority languages and community languages in the Commonwealth LOTE Element was dropped, but the earlier policies continue to influence thinking at programme implementation level. Approximately three quarters of this funding continues to be allocated to ethnic school programmes and community language insertion classes. The Commonwealth LOTE Element makes a relatively small but significant contribution to school languages education in Australia.
In 2002, subsequent to the announcement of the Commonwealth review of its LOTE Element, MCEETYA decided to make a national approach to languages education one of its priorities. A report is to be given to MCEETYA in mid-2003.