[lg policy] Australia: Half-baked language policy is al dente
hfsclpp at GMAIL.COM
Sat Nov 3 14:56:57 UTC 2012
Half-baked language policy is al dente
Benjamin Herscovitch | 02 November 2012
The government’s recently released white paper, Australia in the Asian
Century, is heavy on big picture macroeconomic analysis about
Australia’s place in Asia and light on concrete policy proposals. One
notable exception is the much-publicised commitment to give all school
students access to at least one priority Asian language.
The announcement has been hailed as a ‘win for language’ by members of
the government-funded Asia literacy lobby such as Kathe Kirby,
executive director of Asialink and the Asia Education Foundation. Do
not believe the hype: The policy is a false victory for the Asia
literacy lobby and good news for the rest of us.The white paper’s
Asian languages commitments will add little to existing state and
territory language education programs.
Three of the four priority Asian languages students are set to have
access to – Mandarin, Indonesian and Japanese – are already offered in
all states and territories, while Hindi, the fourth language, is at
least offered in NSW and Victoria.
Although not every school in every state and territory has a Mandarin,
Indonesian or Japanese teacher, it is not clear the new policy will do
The white paper’s use of the weasel word ‘access’ should immediately
raise suspicions. Instead of significantly beefing up Australia’s pool
of language teachers, the government is going to use infrastructure,
such as the fabled National Broadband Network, to provide students
with ‘access’ to priority Asian languages. This lack of ambition may
actually be the policy’s greatest virtue.
As I have argued elsewhere, Asia’s widespread English literacy and
multicultural Australia’s extensive Asia literacy mean we do not need
to urgently increase the number of students learning Asian languages.
The white paper’s commitment to offering every student the
‘opportunity to undertake a continuous course of study in an Asian
language’ is therefore suitably modest.
This gives students the option of learning important language skills
without establishing what would be a wasteful and ineffective
compulsory language program.
Languages are hard to learn and only useful in select situations.
By offering Asian languages to students on an optional basis, only the
students with the necessary enthusiasm to succeed and plans to use
their language skills will take the plunge.
As a false victory for the Asia literacy lobby, the white paper is a
triumph for commonsense.
Benjamin Herscovitch is a Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent
Studies, and author of Australia’s Asia Literacy Non-Problem.
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
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,
For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
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
More information about the Lgpolicy-list