[lg policy] Language policy sure to be lost in translation

Sun May 20 16:08:34 UTC 2012

Dani Garavelli: Language policy sure to be lost in translation
The issues of cost, staffing levels and time in the curriculum are
likely to put paid to any plans for extra language lessons.

Published on Sunday 20 May 2012 00:00

EVERY couple of weeks I have the same row with my eldest son. As he
sighs theatrically over his French homework, I burble on about the
merits of being able to converse with people from other countries.

Glib phrases such as “widening your cultural horizons” and “improving
your career prospects” trip off my tongue. Then, while telling me for
the umpteenth time he finds it boring and has no intention of taking
it to Higher, he slips in a few glib assertions of his own. “What’s
the point in learning a foreign language when everyone else in the
world can speak English?” he says, mainly because he knows it is
guaranteed to have me banging my head off the table.

This is not some teenage stoner I’m talking about. This is a boy who
can tell you exactly what’s happening in Syria on any given day and is
constantly planning trips to countries he hopes to visit in his gap
year. So why on Earth isn’t he interested in learning how to talk to
the people he might encounter along the way?

>>From speaking to other parents, I know he’s not alone. The distaste
for foreign languages seems almost endemic in Scottish secondary
schools, particularly among boys, for whom verbal communication of any
sort is a chore and who are able – both at home and abroad – to get by
on the international language of football.

Now it transpires the SNP shares my exasperation. Alex Salmond’s
vision is for an independent Scotland looking outwards towards Europe,
yet he’s faced with a linguistic insularity that is impacting on the
country’s success. Our young people’s lack of language skills is
making them less employable, and costing the economy more than £590
million, he claims. And things are getting worse, with the number of
pupils taking French, Italian or German to Higher dropping by 4 per
cent last year.

Unfortunately, learning minister Alasdair Allan’s plan to tackle this
problem seems as headbangingly unrealistic as my son’s attitude to
international relations. At a time when some schools can barely afford
to buy in supplies of paper towels, he claims that within the decade
pupils in Scotland’s primary schools will be learning not one but two
foreign languages.

It’s not hard to see where he’s coming from. Immersion in a foreign
language at a young age gives you an advantage, as I should know.
Packed off to Italian classes every Saturday morning of my young life,
I missed out on Multi-Coloured Swap Shop, but I can still converse –
after a fashion – with my cousins. Yet when you consider the number of
language assistants in Scottish schools has fallen from 284 in 2005 to
just 59, how can the government possibly commit the kind of investment
(an estimated £8m-£12m) that would make its plan feasible?

It isn’t just about cost either, it’s about time. Teachers are already
struggling to cope with the vast array of topics they are supposed to
cover. Unless the SNP is proposing to extend the school day, the extra
language lessons are going to impact on the existing curriculum. And
what about schools with a large proportion of pupils whose first
language is not English? Haven’t they got enough to contend with
trying to make sure these children can keep up with their peers,
without adding two more languages into the mix?

The whole idea would be more convincing if teaching one foreign
language in primary had proved an overwhelming success. In my younger
children’s school, they are taught French from P1, but it’s pretty
piecemeal. Mostly it seems to involve learning colours, animals and
parts of the body whenever teachers can squeeze it in, which is
commendable, but when experts say younger children absorb languages
easily, they probably have to hear it spoken more than once a
fortnight.

In an ideal world, I guess, foreign languages would be incorporated
into the daily schedule, but, if the government had money to spare I’d
rather it was spent on teaching more youngsters to play an instrument
(which is also supposed to help improve linguistic abilities). Or even
better, schools could place a greater emphasis on teaching English
grammar, because the greatest barrier to teenagers learning a foreign
language is surely ignorance of their native tongue. I may be
old-fashioned, but how can you begin to conjugate verbs or decide what
tense you should be using in a particular context if you’ve never
considered how a sentence is constructed?

More important still, if you want to inculcate a desire to learn
modern languages in teenagers, is to loosen the grip French holds on
modern languages departments. One of my son’s biggest beefs is that if
you want to take just one foreign language to Intermediate level in
his school it has to be French. Yet Spanish – spoken by more than
three times as many people – is surely more useful.

I could go on. But I should probably direct the rest of my rant
towards my eldest whose latest ploy in the campaign to drive me insane
is to claim that – since you can take a dictionary into the exam –
there’s no point in learning any French vocabulary. I know, I
shouldn’t take the bait. In fact, now I come to think of it, perhaps
the best way to turn my strop merchant into a polyglot is to start
going on about just how little learning a foreign language matters in
the modern world. I wonder if this policy could be extended to the
whole country. If instead of promising to invest millions of pounds
tackling the problem, Alasdair Allan told a nation of sullen teenagers
the government was going to remove foreign languages from the
curriculum, would they march on Holyrood, demanding their right to be
taught?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/dani-garavelli-language-policy-sure-to-be-lost-in-translation-1-2306108

-- 
**************************************
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,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list