Hansard

Merci, Presiding Officer. I can provide that to the official report if you require, but I do not think that I will worry the interpreters much more in my speech.

Even though I, like tens of thousands of Scots, am able, when the occasion demands it, to drag up from the darkest depths of my memory some limited, pidgin French that I can use when on holiday in France to find the nearest bistro, brasserie, vineyard or football match—take your choice—Ianguages largely passed me by. That is a situation that affects all too many of us. I am afraid that my only language skills are in industrial language. I am not certified, but I reckon that I could be at PhD level in it.

Scottish Labour supports the sentiments of what the Government is proposing. However, far be it from me to indulge in a sterile debate or a round of ministerial back slapping. We support the principles of extending language provision, but we see a number of areas that require further scrutiny. We will, of course, offer constructive advice where we see fit. As the minister and his team know, the Labour education team is always willing to offer help to the Government.

I thank and commend the Scottish languages working group for a laudable and potentially important contribution to what is a vital debate about languages and language teaching in Scotland’s schools. On page six of the report, the group states:

“Language learning is life enhancing. It opens the doors to possibilities and experiences which are not available to those who are restricted to the knowledge of one language ... Through learning new languages young people can become successful learners with opportunities relating to working and travelling abroad”.

I think that we would all agree with those sentiments.

How many times have many of us, while abroad on holiday, on business or for whatever reason, suffered in embarrassed silence due to our inability to communicate in the language of the country that we are visiting? That individual deficiency is bad enough, but the working group also estimates that our failure to teach languages in a comprehensive and universal fashion amounts to what one commentator said last week is a language tax that costs the Scottish economy £500 million. For economic, educational and cultural reasons, it is abundantly clear that we have to become more multilingual.

The working group has made some positive recommendations. The 1+2 suggestion of having primary school children learn a language other than English from P1 and another by P5 is one that we support. As the minister said, it fits the model that exists across Europe. If implemented effectively, it has the potential to transform our ability to communicate, with the obvious knock-on benefits that that will have.

However, we have some concerns and, to be fair, we are not the only ones. The working group itself stated that, in relation to current language teaching in primary schools,

“there are concerns that some primary children do not have access to an additional language due to staffing, training or funding issues, or other perceived curricular priorities.”

Anecdotal evidence suggests that, at present, language provision in primary schools is often ad hoc and inconsistent due to those pressures and others. Such issues are raised repeatedly, not just in relation to language provision but in other areas of the school curriculum.

We need to look at the proposals against the background of the realities that schools today face. We have to remember that there are widespread and sustained cuts in the public sector, including in education. Since 2007, that has manifested itself in nearly 4,000 teaching posts being lost across Scotland. Many newly qualified teachers who perhaps have the necessary language skills cannot get work, and supply teaching is in crisis in some areas. The rector of a school in my area, for example, told me that their school had been down one modern language teacher for around six months, I think, and could not get supply cover.

The number of foreign language assistants is down from 300 in 2005-06 to just 59 in 2011-12. The languages working group said that foreign language assistants

“will have a key role to play in successful implementation of a 1+2 policy.”

The minister did not mention language assistants. In summing up, will he confirm how work with the British Council and others will ensure that more foreign language assistants will be introduced back into our schools?

What about the cost of and funding for the roll-out? The minister mentioned that, in 2008, £4 million was given to local authorities to support language provision. Funding has been rolled up into general local government settlements, but the working group stated:

“if delivery of the 1+2 language policy is to be successful, further dedicated resources will be required.”

How will those dedicated resources be provided? Funding of £4 million seems rather a small amount in light of our challenge. We need more information on that.

The working group acknowledged the need to upskill teachers and for a commitment to extensive continuing professional development. It stated:

“There will be significant organisational, resource and staffing issues from Primary 1 onwards ... There will need to be sufficient numbers of primary teachers, appropriately trained, confident and competent in language teaching.”

Information on how that matter will be addressed was largely absent from the minister’s opening statement.

From our discussions with the teaching profession, we know that it understands fully the need for a major training initiative to implement such a programme, but there is, of course, a big resource issue. What commitment is there to provide the funding for the teachers and training that will be needed for the national roll-out to be successful, should the pilots be so? Since the announcement was made, I have spoken to many teachers and a number of young people about their experiences of learning a language in primary and secondary school. The constant theme is exposure to languages too late and a lack of consistency from primary through to secondary school. I agree that we need to catch young people early in their education and that they need to be immersed in the language, not drip-fed.

Currently, many pupils in secondary school end their language experience in second year. That is especially true of boys, who largely opt out of taking languages. As we already know, the number of pupils who take highers in the main languages is decreasing, and for languages such as German the decline is significant. If the proposals are to work, consideration will have to be given to how schools offer subjects and how they will manage an already crowded curriculum, which will become even more crowded when Scottish studies comes on stream. In his summing up, perhaps the minister can say how those issues will be addressed.

We are concentrating on schools, but there are other missed opportunities for developing language skills in Scotland. Many people want to learn a language later in life, because of experiences in business or on holiday for example. My father-in-law is fluent in French and he began to learn it only 10 years ago. That was because of experiences that he had later in life. We should consider enabling people to learn throughout their lives through workplace learning, for example.

Finally, will the minister clarify what plans the Government has for the pilot schemes? How will they be monitored and evaluated? When does the minister plan to publish details of them? I urge that, when he establishes the pilot areas, he makes them broad and representative. By that, I mean that they should take in urban and rural schools—as there are particular issues, in respect of supply teaching for example, for rural schools—primary and secondary schools, and schools in areas with very different socioeconomic indicators, not least because, as the working group stated,

“the biggest educational challenge faced by legislators and educators alike is in raising educational attainment for children in areas of high social deprivation.”

To conclude, I reiterate our broad support for the objectives of the policy. The points that we have raised have been raised in good faith, and we all want to see the policy succeed.

I move amendment S4M-03004.1, to leave out from “supports” to end and insert:

“acknowledges the decline in language course take-up in secondary schools; recognises that developing language skills from an early age is best supported by well-trained teachers and language assistants; notes that the numbers of both have reduced significantly since 2007, and calls on the Scottish Government to identify how any future roll-out of the proposed pilot projects would be funded to allow all young people to start learning a second language from primary 1.”

09:39