All of the major curriculum statements, policies and plans for at least the past two decades have noted reasons why LOTE should be an important and legitimate part of the learning experiences of Australian students. As an example, the Catholic Education Office of the Canberra and Goulburn Archdiocese LOTE Policy Guidelines (2002) provide the following as its rationale. Learning a Language other than English, it says (p.6):
- enhances students’ skills in cross-cultural communication;
- improves students’ knowledge about the country of origin and the target language including customs, history, geography, literature and the arts;
- fosters students’ awareness, understanding and appreciation of other cultures as well as their own culture;
- promotes a wider world-view by demonstrating the interrelatedness of languages and cultures, including how culture and languages are linked with and borrow from other cultures and languages;
- builds students’ self-expression and sense of achievement by studying another language
- contributes to students’ personal development by cultivating tolerance and respect for other cultures, and stimulating curiosity about the lives of people from diverse cultural backgrounds.
Whether the purported benefits of second language learning are as significant, either for individuals or for nations, as its supporters claim is a matter for research that is beyond the scope of this review. It is sufficient to note that it is difficult to demonstrate the economic value that has accrued from the Commonwealth’s investment in LOTE thus far. This is not to say that there have not been benefits for individuals from the study of LOTE as several submissions to the review attest. What is needed is more tangible demonstration of these benefits in a form that will convince students and the community of this validity.
Few people appear to be opposed to the notion that LOTE has a legitimate place in the Australian school curriculum. What is contentious though, is whether LOTE should be a mandatory study in the curriculum for all students, and if so, when should study begin and end, and at what standards and expectations should apply to that learning.
There are two classes of argument against LOTE for all: the first is a conceptual argument based on the belief in the primacy of English and the lack of necessity for widespread study of other languages; the second argues against uniform and compulsory language study on pragmatic grounds, that is, on a belief that LOTE is too hard, both intellectually and logistically for all schools to provide a worthwhile learning experience, at least at present.
It is true that many other countries teach English as a part of their curriculum, and that it is far more likely for them to be able to communicate in English than it is for most Australians to communicate in another language. It is also true that English is one of the official languages of many international organisations, such as the OECD, the United Nations, the Olympic movement and so on, and in certain industries (aviation, for example). Anecdotally at least, much of the world’s business transactions and global investments appear to take place in English. It is the language of law, science technology and technological communication. The majority of Internet websites are in English or offer English versions.
But it is also true that much of the world does not speak English, as overseas travel rapidly attests. Much of the world’s business is not transacted in English. And much of the world’s cultural experiences are opaque to those who know only English. In the words of the Nuffield Inquiry: “we are fortunate to speak a global language, but in a smart and competitive world, exclusive reliance on English leaves [us] vulnerable and dependent on the linguistic competence and goodwill of others” (p.6).
An emerging viewpoint finds against the study of LOTE for instrumental reasons or on the grounds that it is necessary to be an “educated person”. This viewpoint acknowledges the importance of an understanding by all Australian students of the cultures of other people. It also acknowledges that language is a major way that cultural understanding is conveyed and transmitted. This view sees language study as a significant component of a KLA of cultural studies, somewhat akin to the Studies of Asia as it is being seen “beyond dragons”.
There is general consensus that the Commonwealth, in partnership with other jurisdictions, has an important contribution to make in terms of leadership, strategic development, priority setting, and coordination of efforts to support LOTE.
Commonwealth funding underpins much of the LOTE activity in Australia. In one sense budget allocations reflect the value placed on a particular area within the school curriculum. By providing specific funding for LOTE, the Commonwealth sends a message that language maintenance and language learning are important.
If we accept the view that language policy is about more than simply language education programmes, if it is about developing cultural and linguistic diversity as social and economic capital for Australia as a whole, then it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to have some specific responsibilities in working with education jurisdictions and the broader community. Commonwealth responsibility therefore lies in:
- providing strong leadership and commitment to LOTE. The Commonwealth should lead the debate about what capability in languages Australia will need in the next twenty years to fulfil its economic, strategic, social and cultural aims and responsibilities, and develop a coherent strategy to meet those needs.
- articulating policies that will impact on state and territory provisions of LOTE. With the Commonwealth providing direction in this way, LOTE will be seen not just as a requirement of a particular jurisdiction but rather a national pursuit towards a particular goal.
- setting, in conjunction with States and Territories, criteria for successful LOTE provision in terms of teacher supply, materials development, and curriculum. The Commonwealth should help address sustainability and equity of provision.
- ensuring that LOTE delivery in all candidatures is possible- [the national coordination of delivery of programmes especially in smaller candidatures requires Commonwealth support]
A range of options may be considered in terms of future Commonwealth involvement in school LOTE programmes. Some of these include the following:
- Commonwealth withdraws funding support entirely from LOTE
- Commonwealth funding support is limited to strategic interventions
- A range of sub-programmes is established targeting specific areas of need
- Current funding levels are continued
- Current programme is continued, but funding is decreased
- NALSAS funding is re-instated
- Funding for LOTE programme is enhanced.
There are advantages and disadvantages for each option, which are discussed in the body of the report.