[lg policy] Australia: Confucius Classrooms: If government won't pay for language teaching, China will

Fri Jun 3 19:38:43 UTC 2016

Confucius Classrooms: If government won't pay for language teaching, China
will
3 June 2016 10:48AM

Language policy in Australian schools isn't likely to become an election
issue but perhaps it should be. A recent article in the Sydney Morning
Herald
<http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/behind-confucius-classrooms-the-chinese-government-agency-teaching-nsw-school-students-20160525-gp3882.html>
detailing the expansion of the Confucius Classrooms program at primary
schools in Sydney and Melbourne quoted parents who were unhappy with this
development and said the classrooms 'were viewed uneasily by some China
watchers'.

Of course, any program run by a foreign government in Australian schools
should be scrutinised. However, fears that the teaching of Chinese language
has been politicised should be put in the context of the broader education
debate around foreign language acquisition.

The Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban) is part of
the Chinese Ministry of Education. It has set up Confucius institutes and
Confucius Classrooms around the world to promote Chinese language and
culture. There are now
<http://english.hanban.org/article/2010-07/02/content_153910.htm> more than
554 Confucius Institutes and Classrooms in 88 countries, giving foreigners
the opportunity to learn Chinese and learn about China virtually for free.
As the SMH article says, schools are given $10,000 in the first year for
teaching, and are provided with resources including teaching assistants
hired and paid for by Hanban.

There are concerns that Confucius Institutes are a propaganda tool of the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP), limiting freedom of expression and promoting
censorship within independent schools and universities. Such concerns have
prompted a number of universities, including the University of Chicago
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-confucius-institute-hearing-met-20141204-story.html>
and Penn State University, to end their relationship with Hanban. Penn cited
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/penn-state-latest-school-to-drop-chinas-confucius-institute-1412196655>
a 'lack of transparency and academic freedom'.

It is right to question the objectives and operations of the Confucius
Classrooms program, and the SMH article rightly challenges the
appropriateness of a Chinese government body to run programs in Australian
schools. But it misses another important point, which is that Australia has
a shortage of Chinese teachers.

In 2013, the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper
<http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/2013/docs/australia_in_the_asian_century_white_paper.pdf>
suggested all Australian children should have access to one Asian priority
language (Japanese, Mandarin, Hindi and Indonesian). Children would also be
encouraged to undertake a 'continuous course in an Asian language'. When
Tony Abbott came to power he pledged $2 billion to help lift the number of
year 12 students studying a language other than English by 40%.

Despite such lofty objectives, the number of students studying *any*
language continues to decline. In 2014, there were
<https://theconversation.com/from-hawke-to-turnbull-asian-language-learning-in-decline-47163>
only 798 high school students studying an Asian language in NSW high
schools, down from 1500 students in 2000.

If Malcolm Turnbull is re-elected there is unlikely to be a substantial
change in policy. On his blog in 2012 Turnbull wrote
<http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/the-asian-century-and-learning-chinese-in-school>
'linguistic fluency does not...entail a knowledge of (or) empathy for the
culture and history of the country concerned'. Labor has yet to release its
policy on language learning but, given all the talk of budget black holes
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-28/labor-budget-black-hole-could-be-less-than-20-billion-analysis/7455476>,
substantial support for language learning appears improbable from either of
the major parties.

Which brings us back to the Confucius Classrooms controversy. Given the
shortage of language teachers
<https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/staff-australias-schools-2010-main-report>
in schools across Australia, the Confucius Classrooms program is, as the
SMH noted, 'an attractive package for cash-strapped public school
principals eager to offer their students Asian languages.' While there are
some examples <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24672295> of successful
English-Chinese bilingual schools, these are the minority. As there is very
little other funding for schools to carry out a comprehensive language
teaching program, the offer of a Confucius Classroom is an easy way for
schools to outsource their language teaching requirements at minimum cost.

While successive Australian governments have vowed to increase the number
of students learning Chinese, none have offered a funded, targeted and
realistic plan. If governments increased funding for Asian languages,
principals and schools would not need to rely on a Communist
Party-influenced Chinese language curriculum.

Even if there are election vows to increase funding for Asian languages,
history suggests these are likely to be empty promises. This is a shame as
teaching Chinese in primary and secondary schools would ensure students are
interested in, and equipped for, engagement with China in their future
careers and academic pursuits. Better language skills would assist the
policy-makers of the future to think critically when it comes to China, and
to move beyond knee jerk reactions of fear and alarm.

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/06/03/Confucius-Classrooms-If-government-wont-pay-for-language-teaching-China-will.aspx

-- 
**************************************
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
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20160603/fd7e1b86/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
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