Australia: The study of other languages is important as English becomes more prevalent.

[Harold Schiffman]

The study of other languages is important as English becomes more prevalent.

IN 2004 I took part in a joint conference of the US departments of
education and defence. In the wake of 9/11, languages were a major
concern: defence personnel wanted educators to fix the language
problem, public institutions needed to offer the "right" languages,
linguistic skills had to be tied to security and trade, and "heritage"
speakers of strategic languages should help the nation catch
evildoers. The participants were sent off to "fix the problem". We
talked about teaching and learning, curriculum and assessment, tones,
characters, texts and accents. Frustrated by absence of clear, simple
solutions, a convener bellowed: "It's not rocket science, you know!
It's just a subject!"

It probably isn't rocket science, but languages are far from being
just a subject, and English-speaking countries have special problems
teaching them. Languages are deeply intellectual and intensely
practical. When you learn a language well, you engage in the deepest
manifestations of a cultural system. Few other subjects require
cumulative learning of taught material for progress and so languages
contribute substance and continuity.

Since the Rudd Government's election, desperately overdue policy work
is taking place to restore the flagging fortunes of languages. Our
national effort is low by some OECD standards. One of the peculiar
challenges we face is the immense international investment in English,
whose dispersion and status worldwide is probably unassailable. In
2005 British Council research estimated that close to 2 billion people
could be learning or know English by 2010; eventually as many as 3
billion, close to half the world's population.

We haven't even begun to think through the consequences of this. If
English does serve as a global auxiliary language, then it is in Asia
where it is strongest. Research from Hong Kong University colleagues
documenting the status of English across Asia speaks of English
learning as a national mission.

We need a rationale for languages that makes sense to Australians
dealing with a multicultural English-knowing world. We should find the
reasons for promoting languages where they have always been, in the
universal experience of the intellectual gain that comes from
bilingualism and in the unique cultural insight languages offer. This
is why languages should be on all school timetables.

The only feasible long-term solution to our persisting language
problems is for compulsory language study for 12 years. We have the
strongest educational evidence for defending such a choice. We compel
young people to be schooled, so what we offer them should be
academically serious, occupationally rewarding and in the best
interests of the nation. With serious language study we are on strong
ground with all three. But we have tried many times to "fix" the
language problem. In 1968, when fewer students completed 12 years of
schooling, 40% "matriculated" with a language. Today only about 13%
do.

There are some lessons we can draw from our past efforts to do
something about this. First, avoid substitution. An early temptation
of language problem fixers is to get the languages changed. This is
the last thing we need to do. In the past we have often mistaken
substitution for progress. When 87% of final-year students do not
study any language, it is clear the problem is not that some students
study the wrong language. We want more students studying languages,
not the same overall percentage studying different ones.

Second, talk to the students. Students have got good radar for
tokenism, half-heartedness and low standards. We have just completed
an intensive four-year study of Japanese and Italian in metropolitan
Melbourne, listening to student views. The students identified many
signs that some schools, some teachers and "the system" didn't really
believe in languages despite teaching them.

The third broad lesson we can learn from the past is that what we do
to encourage language success in schools is not the same as what our
military or trade or espionage interests might be. It is poor policy
to design what we deliver in schools, struggling as they are with
declining resources and expanding expectations, on the basis of
sectoral needs that require specialised delivery post-school. Language
programs for schools should aim to secure success in learning for the
greatest number of students, in languages we can staff, for which
there is demand and which carry sufficient prestige. The "national
interest" as it is perceived by policy makers isn't necessarily
apparent to learners.

The research that federal Education Minister Julia Gillard is
releasing shows that parental advice, career teacher guidance and
assessment impediments send students the wrong signals about the
effects on university entrance scores. Unsurprisingly, the 90% of
students taking languages in primary school declines steadily from
year 7. The minister is to be congratulated for her interest in
language study. Fixing this problem might not be rocket science but it
won't be quick and easy either.

Professor Joseph Lo Bianco is chair of language and literacy education
at the University of Melbourne.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-language-is-a-window-to-another-world/2008/03/25/1206207099543.html

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************