The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter 3: Findings

This section sets out the findings from the trawl and survey stages, identifying what the research tells us about the range of community languages in use among Scottish schoolchildren and the provision available for children to study these languages, in mainstream or complementary settings. The findings related to provision are presented in two ways: firstly in relation to specific languages, and secondly in terms of comparisons between mainstream and complementary providers. This latter section looks more specifically at the teaching resources used, approaches to assessment, examinations and reporting, teacher qualifications and professional development, and the reasons providers identify for students wishing to study community languages.

3.1 Community languages in use among Scottish schoolchildren

Data from the trawl phase of the study show that in 2004-5, at least 106 community languages were in use in Scotland, by at least 12000 children attending Scottish schools. These data have been collated from language surveys conducted by 14 of the 32 local authorities in Scotland. However, they are almost certainly an underestimate of the true picture, because not all authorities were able to provide this information, and because some authorities collect this information only in relation to children who require English as an Additional Language ( EAL) support. Information about plurilingual children who speak English fluently is often not included in such surveys. Furthermore, not all of these authorities included Gaelic-speaking children in their surveys; while the authorities in which Gaelic is most widely taught do not collect figures on any of the community languages spoken in their schools. Thus the figure of 12000 speakers of community languages includes few Gaelic-speaking children. Few authorities collect information about the number of children who use sign languages, and therefore the number of sign language users is also considerably underestimated. See Appendix A for further details of the range of languages and the authorities in which they are spoken.

In absence of any earlier national figures, it is difficult to say whether the number of languages, or the number of people who can speak them, has been increasing or decreasing. This contrasts with the situation for Gaelic, where data on the number of speakers has been collected since 1881, and the decline is thus well-documented. However, evidence from Scotland and from across the UK, from a range of sources, suggests that the linguistic map is evolving: while the number of languages in use is increasing, the make-up of linguistic communities is changing. The 2001 Census revealed that the 'ethnic minority' population of the UK had increased overall from 6% to 9%, over the ten years since the previous Census, in 1991, and in Scotland, from 1.3% to 2%. While the highest concentrations are still to be found in urban areas, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow, there is not a single local authority in Scotland without an ethnic minority component (the lowest proportion being recorded in Orkney, at 0.4% of the population there). An analysis of this data conducted for the BBC showed that the percentage increase between 1991 and 2001 in the population of people 'born abroad' was fourth greatest in Scotland (34%) out of all the UK regions, surpassed only by the South East of England (36%), the North East (42%) and London (44%) ( BBC, 2005).

Three specific factors (in addition to others less easily identifiable) explain these considerable changes in the make-up of the Scottish population in the course of the 1990s, and indeed, it is likely, since the 2001 Census. The UK government's 'dispersal' policy, which dates back to the 1999 Asylum and Immigration Act, has meant a greatly increased number of refugees and asylum seekers being allocated to Scotland, principally in Glasgow, where the local authority is contracted to house 2500 individuals or families. COSLA data concerning the asylum seeker population of Glasgow in 2003 shows that there were then 6000 people from 73 different countries (from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe), with the largest proportions coming from Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan and Iran ( COSLA Refugee and Asylum Seekers Consortium, 2003). Clearly this population shifts rapidly, depending both on developments in the countries of origin of current and future asylum seekers and on the outcomes of processes to achieve refugee status. The expansion of the European Union in 2004 brought ten new countries into the Union, most of them in Eastern Europe, presenting new opportunities for mobility. Government projections for the period 2004-7 indicated that approximately 10000 people from accession states were likely to move to Scotland ( UK Government Actuary's Department, 2005), although there is some evidence that the actual numbers are considerably greater. ⁴ The Registrar General for Scotland acknowledges the need for more accurate data in this area (Registrar General for Scotland, 2005). In tandem with these developments, growing awareness that the population of Scotland is ageing and in decline and likely to suffer a workforce crisis as a result, has led to a number of initiatives, such as the Fresh Talent scheme, designed to encourage non- EU students who have graduated from Scottish universities to stay in the country. A relocation service set up to support this and other initiatives dealt with 900 people from over 70 countries in its first three months of existence (Scottish Executive, 2005a).

All of these developments indicate that the range of languages in use in Scotland is likely to be on the increase, along with the number of people who speak these languages. This offers greater opportunities than ever before for Scotland to capitalise on the language skills of its population, for all the reasons set out in Chapter 1. But to do this, we need an accurate picture of the provision currently available to support formal learning of these languages, and discussion on how best to develop and enhance this provision. In this chapter, we present the survey findings relating to existing provision and initiate consideration of how best to take this forward, a discussion which continues in Chapters 4 and 5.

3.2 Provision for learning community languages

The information provided by the local authorities and via web searches indicated that in 2004-5 there was provision for at least 21 community languages: during the school day, as an extra-curricular activity, or through complementary schools. The languages were Arabic, Bengali, British Sign Language, Cantonese, Dutch, Farsi, French, Gaelic, German, Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Kurdish, Makaton, Mandarin, Punjabi, Polish, Spanish, Turkish and Urdu.

From the trawl, 86 mainstream primary and 95 mainstream secondary schools were identified as supporting the learning of community languages, either by providing classes or by acting as examination centres, enabling children fluent in their community languages to sit appropriate examinations. Most of the schools providing classes were doing so for Gaelic. In addition, 126 complementary schools or centres were identified as making provision after school hours or at weekends. In some cases these complementary schools were entirely independent of the local authorities. In others, they received some funding or other support from the local, authority. See Appendix B for further details of the languages for which provision was made and the authorities in which this provision was available.

It seems likely that there were other complementary schools which we failed to identify either via the local authority trawl or through web searches. It is also possible that local authority representatives were not always aware of mainstream schools' activities in support of community language learning. In some cases, this can be quite sporadic, because only very small numbers of pupils are concerned. Sometimes, it seems that schools do not publicise this activity, for reasons which are not entirely clear. Although some of the local authorities with a commitment to the teaching of Gaelic provide a rationale for learning the language on their websites and in other publicity, other schools known to support community language learning as an extra-curricular activity do not mention this in websites or prospectuses which nevertheless provide extensive details of sports, music and drama activities taking place out of school hours. Appendix C includes two examples of promotional material for parents considering Gaelic medium education, from East Ayrshire Council and from a primary school in Aberdeen City. In the course of this research, no Scottish authority producing promotional material to encourage children to learn other community languages has been identified.

Questionnaires were distributed to all of the organisations identified in the trawl. Responses were received from 92 of these: 41 primary schools, 21 secondary schools and 30 complementary providers. The overall response rate was 30%, but is markedly better for primary schools (48% responded) than for secondary schools (22% responded) or the complementary sector (24% responded). This is at least partly explained by much greater diversity and a high level of precariousness in the complementary sector. In some cases, organisations identified as possibly making provision for community language learning contacted us to say that in fact they did not make such provision: for example, the Asian Arts Academy in Glasgow returned our questionnaire explaining that they teach dance and drama but not Asian languages. Quite possibly a number of such organisations did not return our questionnaire as it was not relevant to their work. In addition, a handful of questionnaires were returned by the post office as the recipients were no longer at the address we had for them. As many schools are voluntary organisations with little or no funding, meeting in private houses or school or community premises when not in use by other bodies, it seems likely that addresses are inaccurate or change frequently. It also possible that some of the organisations we contacted were no longer in operation. We were also aware that some organisations may not have replied because the questionnaire was in English. Because of the range of languages investigated in this study, it was not possible for financial reasons to provide translations of the questionnaire, and therefore some organisations may have been unable or unwilling to reply. All of these factors are likely to have played a part in the low response rate from complementary organisations.

3.3 Provision for specific languages

Gaelic

Gaelic is the language with the most comprehensive and best developed provision. In 2004-5, there were 61 Gaelic medium units in primary schools, mostly located in the Highlands and Western Isles. However, there were also a number of units in lowland areas. Just over 2000 children attend these units. They are taught in Gaelic throughout their primary education, with English introduced as a second language. There were 15 secondary schools in which some subjects were taught via the medium of Gaelic, and 34 schools offering Gaidhlig (i.e. advanced courses for fluent speakers, rather than Gaelic courses for those who study Gaelic as a second language). In 2005, 190 students sat Standard Grade and 102 sat Higher examinations in Gaidhlig, while 314 students sat Standard Grade and 130 sat Higher examinations in Gaelic.

Our survey targeted all primary and secondary schools offering Gaelic as a medium of instruction or as a second language. In addition, we contacted complementary organisations such as Sradagan which aim to encourage children to use their Gaelic in social contexts outside school. We received responses from 39 primary schools and 16 secondary schools, and from four complementary providers.

Scots

Although Scots is widely spoken in Scotland, finding information about provision to support children's learning and use of this language is extremely difficult. Although our local authority trawl drew attention to Scots as a community language, none of the authority representatives provided any information about the teaching of Scots, nor is it included as a language in any language surveys. The reasons for this are complex. First, there is considerable debate within Scotland as to whether Scots is a language or a dialect of English - or indeed simply 'bad English' (Lo Bianco, 2001). Ambivalence on this issue is reflected in the 5-14 Guidelines for the teaching of the English language, which endorse some provision for Scots within the English language curriculum, but offer an unexpected rationale for this, namely that pupils will come to value standard English and its importance as a 'world language':

From an awareness of the diversity of accents, dialects and languages in Scotland, pupils will develop an appreciation of the diversity of other languages and their importance for the communities which use them. Far from diminishing the significance of English, an understanding of the operations of dialects will enrich awareness of the need for a standard form of language which enables communication across linguistic and cultural boundaries. It will also give a perspective on the influence of English in the world community of languages.
Scottish Office Education Department, 1991: 68

In fact many - perhaps most - Scottish schools teach about Scots, in the context of Scots literature, particularly in the period running up to Burns Night in January, when children traditionally recite the poetry of Burns or other Scots poets. A small number of schools make some provision for teaching the language itself, usually in the context of English lessons. But this kind of activity seems not to be considered relevant to discussions of community language provision.

Sign Languages

British Sign Language ( BSL) and Makaton are also languages about which we have found only limited information. Again, this seems partly to do with debates concerning whether sign languages are 'real' languages or not; and partly to do with the fact that national organisations concerned with the education of Deaf children have a wider remit and more pressing concerns than the teaching of sign languages. There may be more information available at local level, but it was not feasible within the time available to conduct a comprehensive trawl of local authority special needs advisers in addition to the other representatives contacted and therefore the information about provision for BSL is patchy. Nevertheless, we identified four primary schools, one secondary and one complementary provider schools making provision for BSL, and one primary school making provision for Makaton as a result of the trawl, and, and received survey responses from all of them.

There is limited information about the extent to which BSL users succeed in acquiring qualifications in the language while still at school. A survey conducted in 2000-1 (Scottish Sensory Centre, 2001) found that seven students acquired qualifications in that academic year. This seems a very small number, particularly when it is recalled that, in addition to Deaf students, their siblings and friends are likely to wish to learn the language, in order to communicate with them, and projects (such as Deaf Connections Millennium Project) were set up at the start of this decade to support hearing BSL learners in schools. Given that an increasing number of Deaf children are now educated in mainstream schools, the demand among hearing children to learn the language may well be quite substantial.

The languages of Gypsies/ Travellers and Roma

Very little information is available about the languages of Gypsies/ Travellers in Scotland, and indeed there is some debate as to whether Gypsies/ Travellers in Scotland now speak languages other than English. Traditionally, Scottish Gypsies/ Travellers spoke Cant, a language mixing elements of Gaelic, Scots and Anglo-Romani. Gypsies/ Travellers from England and Ireland traditionally also spent time in Scotland, and therefore their languages, Anglo-Romani and Shelta (or Sheldru), respectively, have been used in Scotland in the past, and it is possible that there are still speakers of these languages living in Scotland. In the course of the 20 ^th century, Roma people from Eastern Europe have come to live in the Scotland, as immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees, bringing their own languages, collectively known as Romani (of which there are a number of variants, not always mutually intelligible). In Scotland, as in the rest of the UK, there appears never to have been any formal provision to support the learning of the languages of Gypsies/ Travellers, and it is argued that this reflects the wishes of Gypsy/ Traveller communities for whom these languages form part of an oral tradition kept distinct from the non Gypsy/ Traveller world. However, in other parts of Europe, growing interest in Roma culture, combined with concern that the Romani languages are on the verge of extinction, has led to the development of written versions of these languages and provision for studying them in a more formal way, though these developments remain controversial (Bakker, 2001).

None of the local authority representatives provided information relating to provision for any of the languages associated with Gypsies/ Travellers or Roma.

Urdu

It is likely that Urdu is the most widely used community language in Scotland after Scots and Gaelic. Although precise figures are not available, Census data for 2001 show that there are some 32000 people of Pakistani origin living in Scotland, and it seems likely that a substantial proportion have learned Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, and the principal language of literacy (along with English) for this community. A Standard Grade examination for Urdu was introduced in 1999, and, in 2005, 153 candidates sat the examination. As there is no Higher examination in the language, those who want to achieve more advanced qualifications sit A/S and A-Level examinations, which are also offered by some schools.

In 2004, entries for Standard Grade Urdu were received from 23 centres. These are likely to include schools in which the language is taught as part of the curriculum, and schools which do not teach the language but act as examination centres for students who have been studying the language independently. From the trawl, 12 secondary schools were identified as making provision for Urdu, and replies were received from three of these; 42 complementary schools were identified as likely to be making provision for Urdu, and we received replies from 12 of these.

Other community languages

It is possible for mainstream schools offer classes in community languages other than Gaelic or Urdu, for the languages in which English exam boards offer GCSE, A/S and A-Level examinations. There are some 20 community languages in this category, including Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi, Bengali, Farsi and Arabic. However, our survey found that few Scottish schools made such provision as part of the mainstream school curriculum: local authority representatives identified nine schools across Scotland thought to be making provision for community languages other than Gaelic, Urdu or British Sign Language, but we received responses only from one school offering Punjabi and one offering Mandarin as part of the mainstream curriculum. More commonly, though not offering classes themselves in community languages, mainstream schools act as examination centres for students who wish to sit these exams. In some cases, mainstream schools liaise with complementary schools to enable complementary school students to sit these exams. In other cases, schools make individual arrangements with students who are known to be fluent in these languages (usually students who have arrived relatively recently from a country in which the language in question is spoken) ensuring that the students understand the examination requirements. The number of students from Scotland sitting these examinations is unknown, as the English examination boards do not provide a regional breakdown of exam entrants.

For most community languages, complementary schools are the main sources of formal education. Most complementary schools are organised by families and communities, independently of local authorities, although in some cases local authorities offer financial or other support. Classes are held after the mainstream school day or at weekends, and may be for as little as one hour a week or as much as nine hours a week, spread over several days. Provision varies considerably, depending on the interests and resources of the community. Where there are sufficiently large numbers of students, it is possible to organise classes by age or linguistic competence, employ qualified teachers, and purchase text-books and other teaching materials. Sometimes these are educational materials published in countries in which the languages are spoken, for the use of schoolchildren there. In other cases, materials specially designed for community language learners in the UK are available. Some embassies and cultural organisations sponsored by the governments of the countries in question provide financial support and resources, and they may also enable children to sit examinations of relevance to the country in question. Other communities, particularly those with small numbers of speakers, operate on a more informal basis, with classes in the home of an interested parent, using improvised teaching resources. For some communities, the principal reason for wishing to ensure that children acquire competence in the community language is religious, and therefore classes in the appropriate languages are offered by churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples. Their focus is on developing the linguistic skills needed to read religious texts and to participate in worship.

In the course of this research we identified 126 complementary schools operating in Scotland (including the 42 making provision for Urdu, mentioned above) and received survey responses from 30 schools. These made provision for 13 different languages:

Table 3a: Languages taught in complementary schools and centres
n=30

Note that these numbers add up to more than 30 as some complementary schools made provision for more than one language.

3.4 Mainstream and Complementary Provision

All questionnaire respondents were asked for information on the kind of provision they made for community languages: whether as part of the core curriculum, during the school day, as a school-run extra-curricular option, after school hours, or as complementary provision. They were also asked to comment on the kinds of resources they had available to teach the languages they offered, and on what more they might need. They were asked to say in what ways they assessed students' progress (including formal examinations in the case of secondary aged students) and how this was reported to parents. They were asked to provide information about the qualifications their community languages teachers possessed and to comment on their professional development needs. Finally, they were asked to say what they thought were the main reasons for their students choosing to study community languages. In this section, the findings for each of these questions are reported.

Mainstream providers

Of the 41 primary schools which returned questionnaires, almost all (39 schools; 95%) made provision for community language as part of the core curriculum. All of these schools made provision for Gaelic. In addition, four schools (10%) had provision for students to learn British Sign Language, one made provision for students to learn French, and one made provision for Polish.

Of the 21 respondent secondary schools, four fifths (17 schools; 81%) made provision for community languages as part of the core curriculum. Of these, 16 schools made provision for Gaelic, three for Urdu, one for Punjabi, one for Mandarin and one for British Sign Language.

Four primary schools and six secondary schools offered community languages as an extra-curricular option: the primary schools offered British Sign Language, Farsi and Gaelic; and the secondary schools offered British Sign Language, Gaelic, Mandarin and Urdu.

Complementary providers

The questionnaire for complementary schools was in two parts. Part A was designed for complementary school or centre directors; Part B was designed for a teacher of each of the community languages offered by the school or centre. Where the centre offered more than one language, there could be several Part B returns for each Part A. Thus there were 30 'Part A' returns from respondents who described themselves as having a wide range of roles within the organisation they represented, including: administrator, owner, head teacher, head of education, play leader, chairperson, supervisor, project manager, trustee and teacher; and 38 'Part B' returns, all from community language teachers working in the schools or centres.

The size of these thirty complementary schools or centres varied from up to ten students to over 150 students. Two thirds (67%) of the schools had between 11 and 50 students. The biggest schools (those with over 150 students) catered for Arabic, Cantonese and Punjabi.

Schools catered for all age groups, from those under the age of 5 to adults, but principally for those between the ages of 5 and 16, for which there was provision in all languages; none of the schools making provision for Gaelic, however, catered for students over the age of 14. Over half (60%) of the schools catered for students aged 17-18, but there was no provision for Gaelic, Farsi or Polish at this stage.

Just under two thirds (63%) of the schools made use of mainstream school premises after hours to accommodate classes, while a fifth (20%) used accommodation attached to religious centres. Other types of accommodation included community education centres, libraries, a YMCA hall and premises owned by the schools' trustees.

Over half (57%) of the schools were funded through student fees, and a little under half (47%) received financial support from local authorities. A third (33%) undertook fund-raising activities to boost funds, while a fifth (20%) received money from charitable sources. Schools also turned to a variety of other sources for financial support, including grants from educational bodies, and donations from the community. Schools also received support in kind, such as rent-free premises (40%), and volunteer teachers (33%). Fewer than a fifth (17%) were able to secure funding for student examination entries from local authorities. Parents and community members helped in various ways; and in some cases, schools were supported by organisations such as Comunn na Gàidhlig or the Italian Consulate.

The amount of time students spent per week in classes depended on the language studied. For example, students of Arabic, Kurdish or Urdu were typically expected to spend 3-5 hours a week at the school (and in some cases over 5 hours), while students of Gaelic or Italian were expected to spend 1-2 hours a week at the school. Age seemed to make little difference to the amount of time students were expected to attend classes. The amount of homework students were expected to do also varied, from none at all to more than two hours a week. There is some indication that the amount of homework increases with the age of the students, but considerable variety within each language.

Teaching resources

Primary schools used a range of resources, including textbooks (88%), materials produced by the teacher (85%), audio-visual resources (85%), and computer-based materials (73%). They also drew on resources produced by local authorities and drew on the community (story tellers and theatre groups) and visiting groups (speakers, drama and dance groups) to support learning. However, only three respondents (7%) were satisfied with the materials they had. Most would prefer more textbooks (78%), more computer based materials (76%), and more audio-visual resources (59%). More specifically, respondents commented that they needed:

• more structured reading materials to suit children's wide ranging abilities
• more language and grammar books similar to those used to teach English language in schools

Secondary schools also made use of a wide range of resources including textbooks (86%) and materials produced by the teacher (86%), audio-visual resources (81%) and computer-based resources (67%). They also made use of guest speakers, material drawn from magazines, leaflets, etc. and distance learning materials. Fewer than a quarter (24%) of the secondary teachers were satisfied by the range of materials available to them: the others would prefer more audio-visual materials (57%) and more computer-based resources (57%) and more textbooks (48%). More specifically, they would like to see:

• a Gaelic TV channel;
• a common reading scheme for Gaelic, designed to enable parents to support their children's learning.

Most complementary schools/ centres had access to basic teaching equipment of various kinds: over three quarters (77%) had blackboards, whiteboards or flipcharts, and over two thirds (70%) had space to store equipment, books, etc. However, audio-visual and computer-based equipment was not widely available: fewer than half (43%) had cassette or CD players, and fewer than a third (30%) had TVs, video or DVD players. Fewer than a quarter (23%) had access to computers and a tenth (10%) had internet access. Other resources listed by schools/ centres included sports and craft equipment and games. Directors of centres were keen to increase the amount and the range of resources available to staff. Around three quarters (73%) wanted more storage space, and two thirds (67%) were looking for more blackboards, whiteboards or flipcharts. A similar proportion (67%) wanted more TVs, video or DVD players, while over half (57%) wanted more cassette or CD players, and greater access to computers. Just under half (47%) would like internet access.

Assessment, examinations and reporting

Most (88%) of the primary schools said that they used a range of methods to assess students' progress in community languages, most commonly (in 83% of the schools), 5-14 levels and teachers' own judgements of students' attainment. Teachers also used tests they had devised themselves (51%), and tests from text books (51%); and in over a third (39%) of the schools, students were encouraged to assess their own progress. Almost all (95%) of the schools reported progress to parents, in a written report. Over two thirds (68%) also provided oral reports, and over a third (34%) noted students' achievements in community language learning in records of achievement.

In secondary schools, most (90%) assessed student progress using a variety of methods, including the use of 5-14 levels (90%), tests devised by the teacher (81%), the teacher's own judgement (67%), and tests from textbooks (48%). These methods were used by teachers of all languages. However, only teachers of Gaelic encouraged students to assess their own progress. Most secondary schools (90%) provided written reports to parents of students' progress, and two thirds (67%) also provided oral reports. Just under a fifth (19%) noted students' achievements in community languages in records of achievement.

Almost all (20 schools; 95%) of the secondary schools entered students for examinations: just under three quarters (15 schools; 71%) entered students for Standard Grade and Higher Gaelic; three schools (14%) entered students for Standard Grade, A/S and A Level Urdu; one school entered students for GCSE, A/S and A Level Punjabi, and one for the same examinations in Mandarin. In 2004, these schools entered a total of 194 students for examinations, over half (59%) of whom sat examinations in Gaelic; a quarter (25%) sat Standard Grade Urdu; and around a seventh (15%) sat A/S and A levels in Punjabi, Urdu and Mandarin. In addition, some students were entered for CACDP examinations in British Sign Language.

Almost all (93%) of the complementary schools used other forms of assessment in addition to, or instead of, formal examinations. Only the Gaelic centres did not do so: this is because these were youth organisations designed to encourage Gaelic speakers and learners to use the language in social situations, rather than to provide formal teaching. Over three quarters (77%) made use of tests which the teachers had devised, under half (43%) used the teacher's own judgement, and over a quarter (27%) used tests from text books or other sources. Few schools (10%) made use of 5-14 levels to assess student progress, and only one school (of Italian) encouraged students to assess their progress themselves.

Just over three quarters (77%) of the complementary schools entered students for examinations. Of these, a quarter (25%) entered students secondary schools for Standard Grade (Urdu); almost half (47%) for GCSE examinations (Arabic, Cantonese, Punjabi, Farsi, Polish, Mandarin and Urdu); and just under a third (30%) for A/S and A level (Cantonese, Punjabi, Mandarin and Urdu).

Teaching qualifications and professional development

All of the primary respondents reported that community language teachers in their schools had Scottish teaching qualifications, and over four fifths (83%) reported that staff had opportunities to undertake continuous professional development ( CPD). However, they also noted specific CPD needs for their staff. These included:

• greater understanding of language development;
• differentiation between learners and fluent speakers;
• contact with other community languages teachers, particularly from other local authorities;
• opportunities to observe others' lessons.

Secondary respondents reported that in around three quarters (76%) of their schools, community language teachers had Scottish teaching qualifications, either specifically in language teaching (62%) or in other subjects (14%). One school reported that teachers had qualifications from elsewhere, and one that they had qualifications from a wide range of sources. Most (90%) said that teachers had opportunities to undertake CPD, but noted needs in this area, including:

• liaison with other teachers in Scotland teaching the same community languages;
• opportunities for both local and national in-service training;
• opportunities to share best practice.

Just over a fifth (21%) of the complementary school teachers had formal teaching qualifications. Of these, half had specialist qualifications in language teaching and half had general teacher educational qualifications. Just over a third of the teachers (37%) had a university degree, while a fifth (21%) had few formal qualifications.

Almost four fifths (79%) of the teachers said that they would welcome opportunities for further training of professional development. They listed a number of relevant areas:

Training specific to the teaching of languages:

• Training in language and culture
• Up to date information on language learning and teaching
• Training to bring Urdu in line with other modern languages

General teacher competences

• Exposure to modern teaching methods
• Classroom management
• Training in teaching methods
• Working with children
• Lesson planning

Knowledge of British education and examination systems

• Teaching to GCSE standard
• Training in education qualifications

Formal qualifications

• Accreditation of our teachers to raise their profile
• Training to help teachers become 'registered' modern languages teachers

Opportunities to share expertise

• Experts to share experiences

Reasons for studying community languages

All respondents were asked to say what they thought the main reasons students had for studying community languages. They were given a list of possible reasons and asked to rate these as 'very important', 'quite important', 'of little importance' or 'no importance'. Points were attached to these responses and the percentages below indicate the proportion of the total number of points available to each reason. There were differences in the views of primary and secondary teachers on this issue, between those teaching community languages as part of the core curriculum compared with those teaching them as an extra-curricular option, and also between Scottish respondents and their counterparts in England and Wales.

In both primary and in secondary schools, core curriculum providers saw learning to understand and speak the language as the most important reason for studying it, but learning to read and write the language was seen as more important by secondary than by primary respondents.

Table 3b: Reasons for studying community languages (Scotland: Primary Core Curriculum)
n=34 (Maximum number of points = 102)

Table 3c: Reasons for studying community languages (Scotland: Secondary Core Curriculum)
n=20 (Maximum number of points = 60)

Secondary respondents felt more positively about all the possible reasons listed than did the primary respondents: in each case, the reason is more strongly endorsed by secondary respondents. This may be because, as several of the primary respondents noted, parental choice is an important factor at this stage, and that as a result the students' own reasons are seen as less relevant.

Scottish respondents' views also contrast with those of their English and Welsh secondary counterparts. (Very few English and Welsh primary schools make core curricular provision for community languages ⁵.) The latter rated reading and writing the language, and gaining access to history, culture and religion more highly, but enjoyment, gaining a qualification and the value for future careers much lower.

Table 3d: Reasons for studying community languages (England and Wales: Secondary Core Curriculum)
n=26 (Maximum number of points = 78)

Scottish respondents noted that for many of the students, they are continuing to study the language they started at primary school, and that therefore parental perspectives continue to be as important a factor as the students' own views. In this, they echo the views expressed by their English and Welsh counterparts, but with a more positive tone: for example, Scottish respondents mention 'parental encouragement' while English and Welsh respondents talk of parents 'pushing' their children to study a community language.

Although the numbers involved are small, primary and secondary respondents making extra-curricular provision have quite different views from core providers on the reasons students are interested in studying community languages as extra-curricular option. For primary respondents, reasons such as gaining a qualification and value for future careers are - perhaps not surprisingly - minor elements. These respondents also did not think that meeting others from a similar background was in important factor. In contrast, the secondary school respondents saw all of these elements are important, with gaining a qualification as particularly salient.

Table 3e: Reasons for studying community languages (Scotland: Extra-curricular Primary)
n=4 (Maximum number of points = 12)

Table 3f: Reasons for studying community languages (Scotland: Extra-curricular Secondary)
n=6 (Maximum number of points = 18)

As in mainstream schools, complementary respondents were asked to rank a list of possible goals for the provision made by their school/ centre. Directors and administrators were asked about the aims of their school/ centre, while teachers were asked to say what reasons they thought students had for learning community languages.

School/ centre directors and administrators indicated that the main aims of their provision are to enable the students to learn to understand and speak the language.

Table 3g: Reasons for studying community languages (Scotland: Complementary Directors and Administrators)
n=30 (Maximum number of points = 90)

Learning to read and write the language, and having access to the history, religion and culture associated with the language were also though to be very important; gaining a qualification somewhat less so. (Note that the wording of the questionnaire meant that directors and administrators were not asked the same range of questions as mainstream providers or as complementary school teachers.)

These respondents listed several other aims:

Wider cultural purposes

• To raise cultural awareness and promote racial harmony. To help young people to find their identities by knowing the language

Specific cultural purposes

• Our aims are to teach our children the Punjabi language so that they can read our spiritual holy book and sing hymns
• To teach basic attitudes, discipline and manners

To promote informal language learning

• Our aim is for children to learn the Gaelic language through the opportunities of play
• To promote Gaelic outwith the language classroom
• Our youth club is not for teaching Gaelic but to encourage young people to understand the culture and mix with others using the language

The complementary teachers indicated that they also saw learning to understand, speak, read and write the language as the main reasons for students to study community languages.

Table 3h: Reasons for studying community languages (Scotland: Complementary Teachers)
n=38 (Maximum number of points = 114)

They also saw opportunities to meet others from similar backgrounds and access to the history, culture and religion associated with the language as very important. The least important factors were gaining qualifications and the value of a community language for the students' future careers. Some respondents elaborated on the cultural and family reasons for studying the language:

Cultural and religious purposes

• They learn Punjabi to maintain our culture
• Their history and heritage must be maintained to have a strong link with their community and with their grandparents.
• They want to keep their culture and their identity

Parental support

• Parents want their children to learn Cantonese
• Their parents want them to learn Urdu
• It is the continuation of Italian for the children of immigrants.

The views of English and Welsh complementary school directors were similar to those of their Scottish counterparts. They saw access to the history, culture or religion associated with the language as the most important reason for learning a community language, but understanding, speaking, reading and writing the language were close behind. As in Scotland, gaining a qualification was seen as less important.

Table 3i: Reasons for studying community languages (England and Wales: Complementary Directors and Administrators)
n=192 (Maximum number of points = 576)

There were differences in the views of English and Welsh complementary school teachers, compared with their Scottish counterparts. Both groups saw learning to understand and speak the language as the most important reason for studying the community language, but Scottish teachers ranked social, cultural and enjoyment factors more highly than their English and Welsh colleagues .

Table 3j: Reasons for studying community languages (England and Wales: Complementary Teachers)
n=235 (Maximum number of points = 705)

Both groups ranked gaining a qualification and the value of the language for their students' future careers lowest on the scale.

Other issues

Some respondents took the opportunity to raise other issues about community languages provision. Mainstream providers in primary and secondary schools identified a number of areas in which provision might be improved, including

• a wider range of materials for teaching language arts through the medium of Gaelic;
• updated ICT-based resources;
• the need for Gaelic-speaking specialists to support staff and assist children with additional support needs.

Some commented on the difficulties of making provision for community languages where the number of students is low, but also offered some solutions to this problem:

Currently, we only have seven pupils who speak community languages. We access support from the local authority after consultation with parents and enter students for examinations, when appropriate. We also support students by purchasing texts, paying examination fees, etc.

The need for students' parents to be supported was also identified:

Staff work with parents on a weekly basis to give them the main points for language learning/ acquisition that week. This is essential as parents may be fluent speakers, mature learners, beginners or speakers of Irish Gaelic.

Although those raising these issues were mainly commenting on their experience of making provision for Gaelic, similar issues were raised by English and Welsh respondents, in relation to a range of community languages, indicating areas of common ground which could be jointly explored by teachers of Gaelic and teachers of other community languages if mechanisms to bring these groups together existed.

Both the directors/ administrators and the language teachers in the complementary sector took the opportunity to raise other issues about community languages provision in the complementary sector. The limited funding available was a source of considerable frustration to school directors:

We have over the past 20 years provided six or seven languages, but these are all self-financing. Although the local authority provides rent free premises and funds the teachers two hours a week for 15 teachers, the school needs full-time staff and its own office space in order to develop.

We tend to have several levels in a class - because of staffing problems - which is not ideal and the students are often not happy with this. We find it difficult to find teachers prepared to commit to working two hours every Saturday morning. We have funding problems and heavy expenses in hiring school premises for classes.

We believe that with more financial support from local authorities we could expand our number of students.

Lack of funding means that many schools rely on volunteer teachers, but this creates a number of problems:

We have difficulty in getting teachers on a long-term basis as the teachers are university students here for two-three years while they study. We have no qualified teachers apart from the head teacher. All the teachers are volunteers and only travelling expenses are covered.

We need support as teaching is carried out during the school summer holidays only by volunteer members of the cultural association, with very little training and resources.

We would like to extend our work so we can make it accessible to all children [who speak this language] in Glasgow but we are doing it with very limited resources. We need a permanent place and trained teachers.

Directors and teachers alike wanted to see improvements both to the range of resources and to the professional development opportunities:

All our teachers have no proper training in teaching. We hope we can get some more support in this area.

I am not a qualified trained teacher but I like to pass on my knowledge and I love this. I would like to have modern resources to teach with so that the children do not get bored.

Teachers did not always feel supported by parents or by the mainstream education system:

The language environment is very important: the students need to practise more at home.

We feel it is sad that Italian is not as widespread in schools as it could be. We are concerned that it is being squeezed out of the school curriculum. This is true of languages in general.

We provide a service that is sadly lacking in many secondary schools and FE colleges.

However, they were committed to their work and felt that they provided a valuable service to the community and to the children themselves:

We have only limited resources but we do our best to teach these children our language and culture so that they can communicate better with their parents and grandparents who know only their native language.

We are trying to teach the younger generation Indian culture and language, so that they can communicate with their grandparents and learn moral values from them.

Our children progress slowly but the experience seems to last. Some have taken the language further to a higher level elsewhere.

3.5 Conclusions

This chapter has mapped current provision for community language learning in Scotland, drawing on the data from this study and from other sources to provide as complete a picture as possible. This indicates that the nature and scope of provision is very variable, depending on the language in question and on the mode of provision (i.e. mainstream or complementary). Provision for Gaelic is the most extensive, with opportunities for students to study the language in Gaelic medium units or as a second language, and with a number of complementary providers seeking to enable children to extend their repertoire through social activities outside school hours. Because of this, Gaelic schools and teachers are well represented in the survey and they raise a number of issues which are of immediate relevance to Gaelic itself, but also, in a number of cases, to other community languages as well. For example, Gaelic teachers point to the need to support the parents of children attending Gaelic medium units who may not, themselves be fluent speakers of Gaelic. This is an issue of potential significance for other languages too. Parents of children who have the opportunity to learn their community languages formally may not themselves be literate in the language in question, and therefore, in planning to develop and enhance existing provision, the extent to which parents may or may not be able to support their children's learning needs to be taken into consideration.

There are many languages for which no provision at all is currently made. We have identified some form of provision for 21 languages, but, as we have also found that over 100 languages are in use, this suggests that there is no provision for the formal learning of some 80 languages. In some cases, this may be because only small numbers of children speak these languages and they are scattered geographically. But some of these languages, such as Portuguese, Thai or Tagalog, are in widespread use across Scotland - as our trawl data indicate - and are also languages of considerable economic significance around the world ⁶; and yet there appears to be no provision for children to learn them. Opportunities for formal study of languages with a particular significance for Scotland are also limited in some cases. These include Scots (including regional varieties such as Doric), the languages of Gypsies/ Travellers, some of which have a long historical presence in Scotland and are in great danger of disappearing completely, and British Sign Language. For none of these languages does there appear to be any policy which either recognises the need for formal provision or considers the most appropriate forms of support. This situation is in quite stark contrast to Gaelic or indeed to Urdu which, having become a 'modern language' in Scottish schools, is now included in mainstream language education policies. There is no policy specifically addressing the teaching of other languages, such as Chinese or Punjabi, for which there are no Scottish examinations but for which Scottish pupils may be entered as candidates in English GCSE, A/S or A Level examinations, despite some recent interest in encouraging Scottish students to study Mandarin Chinese (Scottish Executive, 2005b).

Our survey of community language providers identified a number of issues which require further discussion in considering how best to develop and enhance provision. Training and professional development for community languages teachers emerges as one of the most salient issues. Teachers have a very wide range of qualifications - ranging from those who have qualified as language teachers within the Scottish education system to those who are willing and committed, but untrained volunteers. Undoubtedly all of these teachers want to do their best for their students, but collectively they have identified a range of challenges for community language teaching, for which they would welcome more opportunities to develop their own skills and to learn from each other. Teachers' professional development needs are addressed in more detail in Chapter 4.

Another key area concerns the reasons why children (and their parents, on their behalf) are thought to wish to study community languages. This is an issue connected to broader arguments for language learning in the UK, an area to which considerable attention has been devoted since the Nuffield Languages Inquiry, which addressed these issues at UK level, and, in Scotland, the setting up of the Minister's Action Group for Languages, at the turn of the century. These discussions have established that languages education needs to take into account the broader context for language learning, for example, addressing the cultural context in which languages are used, the economic context, their role in the workplace, and social usage. From the survey it is clear that community languages teachers are aware of the importance of ensuring that their students can understand, speak, read and write the languages they are learning, and that they tend to place a high value on the access to cultural, historical and religious matters provided by community language learning. Many also appreciate that community language classes offer students opportunities to meet others with similar backgrounds and to learn to develop social skills in their community languages. Fewer teachers however are as aware of the economic value of the languages they are teaching, placing less emphasis on the gaining of qualifications or on their role in their students' future careers. These findings may help to explain why many students cease to study community languages around the ages of 14 to 15. If community languages teachers are themselves unsure or unconvinced of the economic value of the languages they are teaching, it is not surprising that their students fail to understand that their languages could be an asset for their future careers, and see other school work and preparations for other examinations as taking precedence.

« Previous | Contents | Next »