< Previous | Contents | Next >

Citizens of a Multilingual World: Key Issues

6. Catering for More Than One Language

This section takes forward the arguments in the Rationale (Section 4) favouring diversity of languages provision. It accepts that completely free choice of language will not be possible but suggests a set of processes involving local authorities and other stakeholders that will allow for more diversity of language learning than at present.

In our Rationale we argue that our overall school system should be providing a range of first modern languages rather than concentrating on French alone. The present section should therefore be read in conjunction with the rationale. French is likely to remain the most widely adopted language, followed by German, but we see the country as benefiting if our school system as a whole makes a more balanced provision of French, German, Spanish or Italian as first modern language than at present. We see no reason why Scottish Gaelic and other languages should not be included in this group. We also accept that greater diversification cannot in many cases be achieved in the short-term. It will require a clear and shared understanding of its importance plus extensive consultation, negotiation and planning among key stakeholders. French is by far the most widely taught modern language in primary and secondary schools. It is undoubtedly the language that large numbers of parents want their children to learn because of its prestige, its importance within the European Union, the traditional associations between France and Scotland and the fact that France represents Scotland's largest export market for manufactured goods. However, the understandably strong position of French as first modern language is indirectly posing a problem: a decrease in the provision of other languages as first modern language. Since uptake of a second modern language is not high, this effectively means that Scotland's provision of modern languages at school is becoming less diversified, a situation that runs counter to what our Rationale proposes. We believe that steps should be taken to bring about a somewhat different distribution of languages.

Why has the position of French increased?

We believe this is because:

• the main MLPS language by far is French, and the policy of continuing with the same language from P6 to S4 means that French dominates throughout this period;

• despite good attempts at developing cluster arrangements across primary schools and liaison with associated secondary schools in order to cater for languages other than French from P6-S4, parents ultimately have a major say in choosing a secondary school for their children. This leads some students to switch to French at S1;

• senior management in some schools prefer to put a mix of students from different primary schools into their S1 mixed-ability classes. This has entailed a switch of language to French at S1 or more fundamentally the elimination of languages other than French from the local primary school clusters;

• the Foreign Languages in the Upper Secondary School research showed that senior management and guidance staff in secondary schools tended not to be well-informed about the reasons for learning modern languages in the modern world and so they were not in a position to appreciate the arguments for diversifying languages provision;

• in view of the low uptake of modern languages at Higher, senior management in some schools have been reluctant to provide two small-sized modern languages classes at Higher (say, one for French and the other for German). This has put in question a policy of providing a choice of two different first modern languages at S1. Having one single first modern language from S1 can lead to one single larger class at Higher in that language;

• French is the language that most parents themselves learned at school, and they may wish their children to learn the same language, e.g. so that the entire family can use their modern language when abroad.

What practical steps can be taken in the short-term?

Consolidate existing cluster arrangements for particular languages

At our consultative meetings the point was repeatedly made to us that good cluster arrangements are vital for modern languages if continuity of learning from primary to secondary education is to be assured and if diversification of languages is to succeed. The 5-14 Guide for Teachers and Managers indicates that diversification will stand a better chance if local cluster arrangements for particular languages have been carefully discussed, thought-through and agreed between participating primary and secondary schools and local authorities, in order to form a sustainable commitment to each particular language. Since the diversification of languages provision depends heavily on effective cluster arrangements, we recommend that local authorities and schools devote priority attention to this aspect.

The following is an excellent example of combining the benefits of diversification with those of an early start:

Provide attractive opportunities to learn a second modern language

The situation will be improved if local authorities and schools ensure that students have attractive and realistic choices for beginning a second modern language at an appropriate point within their compulsory period of schooling, as we have stated in our Entitlement section. It is in fact impossible to envisage the problems of diversification being comprehensively solved if the great majority of students learn one modern language only.

Provide good briefing for senior management and guidance staff

The Foreign Languages in the Upper Secondary School research identified a need for high-quality and up-to-date information to be made available to senior management and guidance staff in schools and to parents concerning needs and opportunities for languages. National bodies will co-ordinate their efforts in order to ensure that information of this sort is provided nationally. In addition, we believe that local authorities have an important role to play in accumulating local information on which particular languages would be appropriate to meeting needs and opportunities in the local context, and in ensuring that senior management and guidance staff are well-briefed in relation to this.

Monitor the impact of Higher Still

It will be important to monitor the impact of Higher Still. Possibly, the advent of an articulated system of levels from Access to Advanced Higher might encourage larger numbers of students to continue for longer with their first modern language, thereby allowing for more viable class-sizes at S5. This in turn might enable a diversified provision of first modern languages to be maintained at P6-S4. However, we do not know that this will happen. That is why close monitoring is essential.

What more strategic issues need to be addressed?

We do not believe that decisions about 'languages diversification' should be taken mainly on grounds of administrative convenience to schools. Nor do we believe in a national top-down prescription that the overall school system in Scotland should produce specified percentage outputs for each language.

We believe that languages diversification should be viewed as a social as well as an educational matter that affects local communities, business and our wider society, and that decisions on which languages to teach in schools should be taken on the basis of systematic review and negotiation among the main stakeholders in and out of schools at local level. It would be essential that among the stakeholders there should be persons or groups with strong international links or responsibilities, including if possible Chambers of Commerce, local employers and enterprise organisations, education-business partnerships. We are not suggesting that diversification should be the sole reason for discussions among stakeholders of this sort but rather that it should be an important item on a wider agenda of collaboration and ownership in respect of links between education, the local community and the international community.

What about other languages such as Russian, Japanese, Mandarin, Portuguese?

• We believe that the national priority is for the modern European languages French, German, Spanish and Italian. This takes account of geographical proximity within Europe, extent of trade with Scotland, historical and cultural links and supply of trained teachers. It is possible however that other languages could find a place in S5-S6, depending on the numbers of individuals requesting them, the supply of qualified teachers and the extent to which there were local cultural or business contacts. If so, such interests would probably best be catered for through a combination of local authority, business and Further or Higher Education support, drawing on ICT and distance learning.

What about the heritage/community languages of Scotland?

• The Action Group was established in response both to declining numbers at Higher and to the 1998 HMI report on Standards and Quality in Modern Languages. In both cases the languages at issue were French, German, Spanish and Italian, and not the heritage or community languages of Scotland. Our remit therefore is not directly concerned with heritage or community languages but at various points in our report - e.g. in our Rationale - we have argued for a more inclusive view of language learning and provision that sets heritage languages (Scots and Scottish Gaelic) and community languages (e.g. Urdu) alongside what some still call 'foreign' languages (e.g. French, German, Spanish, Italian). Of course these so-called 'foreign' languages are also languages of the European community of which our country is part and as such we are entitled to view them as 'community' languages also.

  We welcome the fact that the Scots language is nowadays much more valued in schools than it was in the past, as the result of initiatives by the (former) SCCC, the Scots Language Resource Centre and other bodies. In the case of Scottish Gaelic we welcome the positive evidence of the benefits of Gaelic-medium primary education on pupils' attainments in English, mathematics and science as testified by recent SEED-funded research¹³. In addition we see value in the learning and use of the heritage and community languages of Scotland by students who may not belong to the ethnic, cultural or social groups that speak the particular language. There is for example no reason why an English-speaking student in Scotland should not choose Scottish Gaelic, Urdu or some other community language as a 'learner' rather than as a native speaker of that language. Our only concern would be that developments should not be ad hoc but that a stable infrastructure should be securely in place, including the provision of an adequate supply of well-qualified teachers, continuity of learning experience for students over the years and clear evidence of parental demand.

Can diversification be achieved by students switching languages after P7 or S2?

• Some submissions to the Action Group did indeed indicate the desirability of pupils switching languages either after P7 or S2, in order to allow the school to have a more diversified provision of languages. This was backed by an assumption that switching languages was acceptable because the language learning skills that pupils had acquired through their first modern language could be transferred to their second one, enabling them to learn the second one with efficiency. We do not support this view. In Scotland it takes time in which to develop a usable competence in one modern language and for this reason we consider that continuity and progression in a pupil's first modern language are more important than the school's achieving a diversified provision in this particular way. In our view, the best approach is to initiate good cluster arrangements which secure a diversified provision from P6 and maintain this through the entitlement period.

Implications for action

We believe that:

• national bodies in education, in enterprise and in the wider society should ensure that local authorities and schools are provided with relevant, up-to-date information not only on languages in general but also on needs and opportunities in respect of particular languages;

• national research should be undertaken on the needs of the Scottish economy for particular languages;

• local authorities and their schools should systematically:

  seek views from all key local stakeholders in education, including parental groups, local businesses, other local community groups, institutions of Further Education and Higher Education in the area, and others with major responsibilities to the local community concerning needs and opportunities for particular languages;

  similarly seek the views of school staff, students and their parents;

  support the entitlement to the learning of two modern languages during the period of schooling;

  ensure that guidance and senior management staff in schools and parents are well-briefed on needs for particular languages - including heritage and community languages - and opportunities arising from them;

consult Teacher Education Institutions in respect of teacher supply for particular languages.

• Teacher Education Institutions should radically review their provision and support for languages at primary school in their Initial Teacher Education programmes, including the extent to which they cater for different languages.

The goal of such procedures will be to achieve a coherent, negotiated, shared and periodically reviewed plan for languages that allows for diversified provision of the first and second modern language within the local authority, even though this may not be possible in each school. It will therefore permit local authorities to make their contribution to Scotland's language diversity and international profile.

Unlimited parental or pupil choice of languages is not realistic. Our recommendations, if implemented, however, will be more responsive than at present to parental and student preferences. They will make better information available; they will bring a second and optional language on-line during the compulsory period of schooling; and they will make it more possible for those parents with a strong preference for their child to learn a particular language to send their child to a primary or secondary school within the local authority where that language is available.

< Previous | Contents | Next >