National context (Australia)

This section provides a deeper outline of languages education in the Australian national context. As policy and implementation at this level have a direct impact on the Tasmanian context, the national perspective is crucial to this investigation. It is, however, difficult to gain a complete understanding of Australia’s languages

education situation as data is often unavailable. Liddicoat, Scarino, Curnow, Kohler, Scrimgeour and Morgan (2007) undertook an investigation to support the

implementation of the National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools: National Plan for Languages Education in Australian Schools 2005–2008 which involved collecting data from a range of sources to provide a thorough description of the current state and nature of Australia’s languages education. They outlined the difficulty they experienced attempting to obtain quantitative data for this investigation explaining that: data is often non-existent, not reported, or inaccessible due to confidentiality; when data is available it is often from voluntary reports, which does not provide an accurate representation; figures differ between states and

29

jurisdictions which make comparison difficult; and it is unclear how to interpret enrolment figures (Liddicoat et al., 2007). In light of this, they advised caution when considering second language learning figures in Australia. This section is divided into three further areas: policy, curriculum, and implementation, to provide a clear

overview of Australia’s languages education.

2.2.2.1 Policy

The importance of learning a second language is reflected in Australian language policies which constantly address the aim of increasing participation of students studying second languages. The development of L2 policies in Australia spans across two decades; however, Liddicoat (2010) reported that these policies have had little impact on participation levels, therefore the goals of each policy have never been reached. This section outlines the main policies of the last twenty years in Australia and how this has impacted the current state of languages education.

The first explicit language policy, the National Policy on Languages (NPL), was developed in 1987, and operated from the premise that all students should learn at least one language other than English (Liddicoat, 2010). The ideal for this framework was that languages education would be a continuous learning process integrated throughout compulsory schooling, and which was an embedded part of a normative education. According to Lo Bianco (2005) “the NPL was to prove unique in achieving not only bipartisan endorsement but also support from all states, territories and non- government school systems, most of which responded with congruent policies enshrining the comprehensive approach and collaborative ethos” (p. 3), which demonstrates the popularity of this policy. The basic principles governing the NPL were that all Australians would achieve high levels of literate standard Australian

30

English and achieve bilingualism either by learning a language other than English, or learning English as a second language while maintaining their first language;

Indigenous and islander languages would be acknowledged as integral to Australia’s heritage and energetic efforts made to preserve, restore and secure them; and the encouragement of equitable and widespread language services (Lo Bianco, 2007). The NPL envisioned an educational provision in which languages learning was a universal experience for all students, and it recognised that this was a radical difference to current education which would involve a long-term change process (Liddicoat, 2010). Lo Bianco (2007) explained that the result of the NPL was a “coherent national system of planning” (p. 98) and stressed that this was the only policy which comprised of a “comprehensive national language plan, extending across all of government and into civil society” (p. 100). This demonstrates that the policy

developers acknowledged the difficult task of implementing a national policy, and had created plans to enable the ongoing implementation process to provide a universal languages education.

Despite this vision, policy redevelopment began again only three years later, and in 1991 the Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP) was published. Liddicoat (2010) detailed how this policy shifted from providing a universal

education experience to instead expanding present post-compulsory participation and improving the quality of language programs. A number of unimplemented NPL aspects were also eliminated. Pauwels (2007) explained that the ALLP facilitated public discussions of ‘instrumentalism’ in relation to second language learning, in which the value of study was viewed in terms of enhancing trade, business and

31

some languages compared to others and Pauwels (2007) believed this impacted on the language selection in schools. Boyd (2007) highlighted four goals of the ALLP which were reiterated from the NPL, albeit with wording changes, which clearly

demonstrated the attitude of the government at the time, as the goals “became far more economic and pragmatic towards Australia’s language diversity in the short space of time between the NPL in 1987 and this report [the ALLP] in 1991” (p. 166). Supposedly to forestall public criticism, the ALLP claimed to be a continuation of the NPL; however, Lo Bianco (2007) argued that “in the reality of its essential ethos and objectives the ALLP contradicted and sought to undermine the core multicultural and multilingual basis of the NPL” (p. 53). The phrase ‘for all’ which was prominent in the NPL became notably absent in the new goals (Boyd, 2007), and this demonstrates the new nature of the ALLP, despite claiming strong links to the NPL.

While the ALLP continued for more than a decade, with minor modifications, in 1994 the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Strategy was introduced and ran as a parallel policy. This policy targeted language diversity in education, specifying that 15% of Year 12 students studying a language would study Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian or Korean (Liddicoat, 2010). The goals of this policy became very narrow and focused, with the motivation again economic (Boyd, 2007). There was a dramatic rise in the number of schools offering the target languages and the number of students studying them in the first four years of the policy, with Japanese becoming the most widely taught language in Australian schools (Boyd, 2007). NALSAS was ended in 2002 by the Howard government, before the Rudd government introduced the National Asian Languages Studies in Schools Program (NALSSP) in 2008 in an attempt to revisit the aims of NALSAS;

32

however, funding was cut in 2012 (Dabrowski, 2015). While the funding for Asian languages boosted enrolments in the four target languages, the AEF (2014) argued that “from a macro perspective, programme funding for specific languages seems only to have redistributed enrolments among different languages” (p. 30) with little impact on the national enrolment figures. The AEF (2014) report found that in the period since the NALSSP funding, European language enrolments declined while Asian language enrolments increased, and overall there was constant fluctuation, especially in the six most popular Year 12 languages (Japanese, Mandarin, Indonesian, French, German and Italian). Lo Bianco (2009) described the ideological shifts in the period of these policies as ‘ambitiously multicultural’, ‘energetically Asian’, and

‘fundamentally economic’, demonstrating the changes between policy visions. As this section is deliberately brief to provide a succinct overview, see Clyne (2005), Lo Bianco (2005), and Fernandaz (2008) for a more comprehensive policy history, and Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013) provided a thorough discussion of the gap between policy planning and implementation, and offered a range of suggestions for measures to close the gap and deliver a world class languages education.

Policy informs curriculum, which drives education practice. The National Curriculum has been developed to provide a holistic, universal curriculum, and the next section explores how second language learning is situated within it as a key learning area.

2.2.2.2 Curriculum

In the new Australian National Curriculum, it appears that the ideal of the NPL is gaining resurgence, as “the Australian Curriculum: Languages is being developed on the assumption that all students will learn languages across primary and secondary

33

schooling, and that the curriculum will provide for continued learning in different pathways through to the senior secondary years” (ACARA, 2009, p.5). This statement demonstrates that languages are a valued part of current education curricula, and has reintroduced the NPL wording of ‘all students’, however the implementation of this assumption remains to be addressed. Considering previous policies, Liddicoat et al. (2007) argued that one of the difficulties is the mandating of languages, with state policies differing on whether and when languages are compulsory or elective, thus they suggested that mandatory language learning is the most controversial policy issue. This is of interest as it relates to the aim of the Australian Government, who in 2014 announced the intention of mandating second language learning from Year 5 to Year 10 nationwide within a decade (Australian Government Department of

Education, 2014a). However, there has been little justification or implementation strategies outlined for this aim.

At the end of 2015 the Education Council endorsed the Foundation – Year 10 Australian Curriculum: Languages for Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Modern Greek, Spanish and Vietnamese, and released the framework for Aboriginal Languages and Torres Strait Islander Languages, as well as the Hindi and Turkish curricula (ACARA, 2015). The Australian Curriculum:

Languages focuses on learning language and culture, with the aim for students to “learn to communicate meaningfully across linguistic and cultural systems, and different contexts” (ACARA, 2014c, para. 2). Curricula have been designed for each specific language to account for the inherent differences between them. Learner diversity is also recognised, with varying backgrounds affecting students’ experience

34

and proficiency, therefore the Language curricula have been carefully designed for the Australian languages learning context.

It remains to be seen how the National Curriculum affects Australia’s second language education, however the challenges specifically associated with the Language curricula are detailed further in the chapter. Next, in light of the discussion of policy and curriculum, the implementation of languages education in Australian schools is outlined.

2.2.2.3 Implementation

Second languages education differs throughout the states and territories of Australia, leading to a variety of implementation strategies within schools. With a number of languages now endorsed for the Australian Curriculum, its implementation is the next major phase for schools in terms of beginning to teach and assess via Language curricula. Many jurisdictions address languages education through their engagement with the new curriculum, while others have additional or overarching language policies; however, no current policy requires the provision of languages education beyond Years 7 and 8 (AEF, 2014). Language study is not a requirement in any Australian state or territory for senior secondary certification or tertiary entry, and the AEF (2014) explained that “providing students with the freedom to choose subjects that reflect their interests, preferences and learning needs underpins course offerings at the senior secondary level across Australia” (p. 52). This is also highlighted by Bense (2015), who stated that optional second language study means that uptake and continuation is purely based on the decision of the students. While language study is not a requirement, some tertiary institutions offer bonus Australian Tertiary

35

while the AEF (2014) report stated that it is unclear whether the bonus points act as an incentive or reward, it suggested that both are plausible reasons for encouraging student enrolment. The bonus points were found by de Kretser and Spence-Brown (2010) to be one reason that students continued their Japanese studies, along with the positive scaling of raw scores. These systemic advantages, where applicable, certainly appear to boost enrolment figures in the senior secondary years, although it is difficult to get accurate statistics when there is a difference between Year level subjects in different States (de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010). This demonstrates the importance of a national policy, which enables the systematic and consistent implementation of language learning across Australia.

This variety of languages implementation strategies across the nation requires an individual examination of Tasmania, as the present research study was conducted solely in this State.