Thanks Jill & Alan True; I agree – down with sloganeering! ;-)

Thanks also Faustino for your behind-the-scenes peek at the long-ago COAG conference. Personally, as a language-teacher to be, I hope for the day that Kevin Rudd is a foreign minister, since it’d be a nice fillip to the status of language teaching in this country; but that’s just self-interest speaking.

Your arguments are good ones, and I would respond to them thusly:

1. You are right - English is now the world’s lingua franca. By the end of the 21st century, it is quite conceivable that every single educated person in the world will be able to speak their mother tongue, plus English. In such a world, those who speak English, and only English, will be at a distinct disadvantage.

2. You are right – learning a language takes a lot of commitment. Most studies of adult language learners converge on a time period of 5-7 years of *in-country* living and daily usage to acquire native-like language proficiency, in any tongue. But then, it takes years to become good at anything. Does this mean we shouldn’t engage in any skill-building at all, because of the opportunity cost of all the other things we could be doing? I hope no engineers, boat-builders or chefs ever follow your prescription…

And your comment that language is of little benefit in trade deals puzzles me. In economic terms, the need for translation is a transaction cost, as hefty and as inefficient as any tariff. Lower the transaction cost, and your country picks up a nice comparative advantage. (If there’s a translator’s mafia, I’m a dead man…)

3. Your last two posts are somewhat contradictory– saying at one point it’s fairly useless to expose children to elementary language levels (I happen to agree) – but then saying that once they’ve outgrown the ‘language acquisition age’, it’s all too late. So when is a good time? How about right now?

As an experienced Languages teacher in Australia and one with extensive experience supporting, developing and mentoring Languages teachers in all sectors, I cannot agree with the writer. Wide-ranging dealings with teachers in their teaching settings have shown that one of the greatest issues we have in Languages Education today is that of native speaker teachers of the language in question who are
1) not trained as teachers at all and/or
2) do not have considerable teaching experience - Uni teaching practicums AS AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM - in Australian schools.
Such people almost inevitably are totally out of their depth trying to function effectively in Australian classrooms, where the learners and classroom atmosphere are vastly different from those in their home counties, especially in Asia.
There is a strong consensus amongst experienced Languages practitioners in Australia that pedagogy (teaching know-how) and understanding of the local culture is far more important than linguistic skill in creating and managing a productive classroom environment without behaviour management problems. Linguistic capacity is a constantly evolving matter for Languages teachers, and there are opportunities for in-country study (Endeavour Foundation Fellowship through the AEF is one), but to place that capacity ahead of contextualised teaching skill has diminished the chances of success for Languages programmes in Australia. Far better to attract bright graduates who are familiar with our context and skill them,in methodology and language - but, where? Where in Australia are the quality Languages teacher training courses nowadays? Of those remaining, those which have both quality methodology and quality language components are alarmingly diminished.

Although the author has tried to be fair, I don't think he's entirely right in his portayal of the situation.

First, in your average Japanese high school nearly all of the English teachers will be native Japanese. It's true that the JET programme brings in some native English speakers from overseas as language assistants. However, these assistants are on short-term contracts (maximum three years when I participated in the scheme).

Japanese students would only get occasional access to lessons by JET assistants; their formal education in English will be overwhelmingly at the hands of native Japanese teachers.

How does this compare to Australia? An Australian student is far more likely to be taught by an overseas teacher. It varies from school to school, though. At my current school we are all non-native speakers, but at my last school I was the only one who was not a native speaker of the target language.

Also, there is a scheme to place native speaker language assistants in Victorian high schools. It's not as well funded as the JET scheme, but it is nonetheless popular with young people from overseas. Many students will get occasional lessons with these language assistants.

Finally, there is the question of whether teaching positions could be filled from overseas. I have two brief comments to make here. First, we should always give priority to local graduates - not just in teaching, but in all professions. If there's a long-term shortage, this should be advertised to high school students contemplating a career.

Second, it's very difficult for overseas teachers to adapt to the challenging conditions in government schools in Australia. I remember one young woman from Japan who burst into tears after her first lesson. Why? A student had dropped some paper on the floor. You can imagine the trauma she went through when the going really got tough.

Similarly, one school I taught at was greatly relieved when I got to the end of first term. Why? The three previous teachers they'd hired from overseas had all left within the first six weeks.

Mercurius, I taught many student language teachers over a period of 29 years. I'm afraid I have to agree with your critics.

In NSW schools, as you'd be aware, most teachers are required to be able to teach two subjects. Unless there is a massive increase in funding, that will continue to be the case.

Many of the second language teachers choose to teach English as a second language for their second subject. Unless their English is excellent, that is a disaster.

Teaching school students a second language requires a decent knowledge of the students' first langauge. You have to be able to translate correctly into and from the first language--even though people do not teach by the translation method any more.

You can't deal with an Australian class unless you know what the students are saying, and know what to say back. You have to be able to give clear instructions, to deal with tired or disruptive students, and to engage with a class, stimulating and encouraging them. Teaching is a highly skilled and sophisiticated business. These thing require good langange knowledge.

In spite of the standard of English required for university entrance, many of those foreign NESB teachers I taught had poor grammar and limited vocabulary. They could not understand moderately complex arguments in English. They had massive problems with the practicum. Not all, but many.

Teachers have other roles, too. They have to deal with parents, and preferably, to encourage and invovle them. They should be involved in their communities--in country schools, that's a sine qua non. They participate in planning and cooperative activities with other teachers. And they have to teach values--and engage with other teachers in discussion of these. In Australia all of this requires a good knoweldge of English.

On whether it is worth teaching students a LOTE.

The standard replies hold that there is more to langauge learning than learning to speak one .

Students who learn for 5 or so years at school are not going to emerge as fluent speakers. They will have enough to travel--but few do so. They will have some sensitivity to cultural differences, so that they are less likely to offend--provided that is part of the teaching that they get. They will be able to help tourists and immigrants a bit. They will not be fluent.

Perhaps it is more important that students learn to read the language. Then they might explore its literature. But even the best year 12 students cannot understand moderately difficult novels, far less philosophy, history or politics, well.

Language teaching is suppose to provide an introduction to the target culture. This requires a good deal of time. Otherwise it is superficial, and produces a patronising attitude. (What strange people the French are. They don't have a proper breakfast.) If the time is taken, say, to learn about class differences, students' ability to speak and write the language will not be as great.

Learning a second language is supposed to make one sensitive to the limitations of one's own. It leads also to reflection on the nature of language and its relation to thought. (Does a language where all nouns have a gender make people more likely to be sexist? Are the differences between Spanish 'liberta', French 'liberte' and English 'freedom' reflective of their different histories? What differences do they make to the political beliefs people are likely to have?) Again, these things don't just happen; they take time. They're achievable--and more important than students becoming fluent.

But you haven't a hope of getting very far with these aims if you can't speak the students' first language. You are left teaching for the tiny minority of your students who will build on the foundation you have given them and study more after they leave school. The rest will forget. That is not the basis for a happy career.

Some wild-eyed over reactions:

Why would 'eyejaw' turn from the pressing issue of neglect of foreign languages teaching to Maths and Science? Is that an ingrained prejudice: some pigs are more equal than others. Maths and Science since they lead to material gain are innately more valuable than languages which lead to better human beings and citizens.

Mercurio, interesting mix: 12 years in marketing, advertising and PR, potshots at the Labor party and teacher unions (all socialists have horns, tails and forked tridents) but an interest in other languages. Well, Japanese. I ask – I do not take for granted - does Mercurio have a totally utilitarian view of the value of languages education? Is it all about advantage?

And, do these Science buffs and utilitarians think that a Core curriculum will – abracadabra – solve the problems of Australian education, including languages education? Back to good old rote learning and discipline, don’t you know? I agree that content knowledge is vital and neglected in Australian public education at present. (We were talking about public education as well, I hope.) Boring conservative solutions fall apart the second you walk into any Australian classroom these days (outside the elite schools we fund). Life, language and people are too complex for these simplistic answers. There are no recipes or solutions that fit all students in this society whose values are so badly messed up (by incessant junk TV, advertising, junk mail, trash magazines, lying leaders, the white noise of corruption, etc)

BUT the conservative solution is, of course, make all the kids fit the program. Conformity to uniformity (it’s cheaper). There is no way the current mob in Canberra can ever fix languages teaching. Their “values” are diametrically opposed to the heart and soul of languages teaching and learning: respect for different others, diversity, interest in words, ideas and yes, perpetual seminars on who we are. This government is predicated on talking up fear of others, on villifying anyone who doesn’t speak English or subscribe to “Australian values” (ya wha? She wears a head scarf. So did my granny! Grow up.) [Continued]