« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 2. The Scottish Community Languages Survey
2.1 Aims of the survey
The Scottish Community Languages Survey was devised to provide more detailed information than has been available till now about provision for learning community languages. Although local authorities and community networks may be well-informed about provision in their area, it has been difficult or impossible to develop a national picture of the range of languages for which provision is available, the number of children studying these languages or the levels of competence achieved. This has made it difficult to define the extent of the potential linguistic resources available to Scotland or to plan for ways in which the development of these resources can be supported.
The aims of the survey were therefore:
- to collate existing information about provision for community languages in Scotland;
- to collect more detailed information directly from providers about the goals of provision and how these are achieved;
- to identify aspects of provision which could be developed or enhanced, and strategies for achieving this.
This survey complements similar surveys in England and Wales which were conducted simultaneously by Scottish CILT, CILT Cymru and CILT - the (English) National Centre for Languages.
2.2 Phase 1: Local authority trawl
During the first stage of the Scottish survey, all local authorities were contacted and asked for any available information about community language provision in their area, both in mainstream schools and in complementary schools - independently-run schools which provide classes in community languages after school hours or at weekends. The initial point of contact in each authority was the modern languages adviser (where these exist) or others known to Scottish CILT as responsible for modern languages in the authority. The trawl began in August 2004 and continued until March 2005, a longer than predicted timescale for the trawl, reflecting both the complexities of provision and the division of responsibilities. In some authorities, community languages are seen as falling under modern languages, while in others, it is, for example, the English as an Additional Language team or the race equality officer who collects the information. Special needs advisers may hold information about provision for BSL and Makaton. In addition to the local authority trawl, several web searches were conducted, principally to identify complementary schools, as it became clear that many local authorities did not collect this information.
Local authority representatives were also asked to provide any information they already collected about languages other than English spoken by school children in their area: for example, whether they conducted a language survey, or whether they kept a directory of complementary community language providers.
2.3 Phase 2: Questionnaire survey
As a result of the trawl and the related web searches, questionnaires were sent to all primary, secondary and complementary school providers identified. These questionnaires set out to collect more detailed information about the range of languages for which provision is made, the rationale for provision and the achievements of the students (in terms of examinations sat). They also aimed to identify the support needs of providers.
The questionnaires were distributed between February and May 2005 and analysis of the responses, using SPSS, was conducted over the summer of that year.
Findings from the trawl and from the survey are presented in Chapter 3 of this report.
2.4 Phase 3: Consultation
Initial findings from the trawl and questionnaire stages of the research in Scotland, England and Wales were presented to an invited group of specialists in this field. These included head teachers, teachers in mainstream and complementary schools, inspectors, policy makers, advisers and heads of services for English as an additional language and for refugees and asylum seekers, from all three countries. The specialists were invited to comment on the findings, focusing particularly on the following questions raised by the research:
1. Is there a significant difference between provision for modern foreign languages and provision for community languages in terms of the goals, outcomes and rationale?
2. What are the benefits (for students and their communities and for wider society) of bringing provision for modern foreign languages and community languages closer together?
3. What is the future of community language learning and how might visions for the future be achieved?
The outcomes of these discussions are represented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report.
« Previous | Contents | Next »