Hansard

The speeches in this morning’s constructive debate leave little doubt that we can and should do more to promote language learning. As my colleague Neil Findlay said, Labour welcomes the languages working group’s report, which makes a number of positive recommendations.

We know from a recent survey that has already been mentioned that in many European countries nearly all secondary school pupils learn two or more foreign languages, while more than half of the senior secondary pupils in the UK do not study a foreign language at all. As Neil Findlay, Stuart McMillan and a number of other members have made clear, language learning is life enhancing and opens up possibilities that are not available to those restricted to only one language.

Claudia Beamish, Liam McArthur and others set out the economic case for language learning; indeed, as we know, the report estimates that the decline in language learning has cost the Scottish economy around £0.5 billion. As a result, the cultural and economic motivation for improvement is clear.

Many members recognised the dedication and commitment of modern language teachers and assistants up and down the country, and I am pleased that the working group report has acknowledged the

“considerable innovative practice in relation to the teaching of languages”.

Although the 1+2 policy that the working group has outlined is to be welcomed, and although increased language learning is a good and ambitious idea—as Neil Findlay, Kezia Dugdale, Liz Smith and Liam McArthur have stated—there are clear and obvious concerns about its proposed implementation. There is universal recognition that developing language skills from an early age is best supported by well trained teachers and language assistants but, as many of my Labour colleagues and other members have pointed out, the numbers of both have fallen significantly since 2007.

The report states that foreign language assistants in primary schools and secondary schools will have a key role to play in the successful implementation of a 1+2 policy but, as we have heard in this debate, there are only 59 such assistants this year, down from almost 300 in 2005-06. The report clearly states that this ambitious goal will be achievable only with the right resources, and it is obvious that the Scottish Government must take action to address that decline if we are to avoid another strategy that sounds great on paper but fails to deliver on the ground. Given estimates that council funding for foreign languages will have to double—or possibly even treble—to make this policy a reality in our schools, I would welcome more detail from the minister on how the Government intends to fund this initiative. He mentioned a figure of £4 million and we look forward to seeing more detail on what that £4 million is for and what it will provide.

Although the 1+2 model of language learning in primary schools is to be welcomed, it is not enough in itself and the languages working group report makes a number of other key points and recommendations. As Neil Findlay mentioned in his opening remarks, there is also an issue about the emphasis placed on learning additional languages from P1 and the lack of a requirement for secondary pupils to study an additional language beyond a certain age. Such subjects are no longer part of the core curriculum. As Margaret McCulloch, Hanzala Malik and many others pointed out, we must tap into the many international languages that the children and young people in our schools already speak.

We must also look at enhancing partnership working between primary and secondary schools to ensure continuity of learning. The working group’s report highlights that very issue and research carried out by Scotland’s national centre for languages indicates that up to a third of the primary schools that responded have no regular language links with secondary schools in their areas.

Perhaps the most worrying part of the working group’s report is the recognition of a significant decline in the number of languages taken forward to SQA-certificate level. I do not believe that that is just an issue of take-up—to believe that would be to blame pupils’ motivations; possibly, it is part of a worrying trend of high school pupils being unable to choose the highers and advanced highers that they want to choose at their local school.

I am aware that in at least one local authority the overall number of highers and advanced highers in languages and other subjects taught in school has fallen. It is vital that that is part of any audit. I suggest that the Government carries out a similar audit to see if the general number of highers and advanced highers is reducing in schools in the other 31 local authorities to ascertain whether our young people are getting the choices locally that they deserve.

As many members have mentioned, the reality is that 75 per cent of the world’s population does not speak English, and we should give consideration to learning the languages of countries whose economies will undoubtedly play a stronger role on the world stage in the future. Claudia Beamish mentioned China. Brazil, Russia and the countries of Eastern Europe are other obvious examples. Although the working group did not set a specific hierarchy of languages to be learned by pupils, it did note the strong case to be made for learning languages such as Portuguese, Arabic and Russian, as well as other Slavonic and Eastern European languages.

I note that part 5 of the report details the working group’s recommendation that the Government should engage with higher education to look at the implications of the report for that sector and for students. I was pleased to see the suggestion that universities should look to expand the number of languages offered to take account of a future increase in the number of languages taught in schools and the anticipated increase, over time, of pupils studying to higher level and beyond. The Government therefore needs to be serious about supporting the teaching of languages at Scottish universities.

Sandra White referred to the Public Petitions Committee, which is considering a petition in the name of Dr Jan Culik, a senior lecturer in Czech studies at the University of Glasgow, calling for the Scottish Parliament to protect lesser-taught languages at our universities. The petitioners are rightly concerned that a lack of targeted funding for lesser-taught languages will mean that Scotland is at risk of losing much of the teaching provision for lesser-taught languages. The petition seeks the Scottish Government’s support for the University of Glasgow’s unique languages-based programmes in Czech, Polish and Slavonic studies, and in Latvian, Estonian and Hungarian. Once lost, the existing expertise will not be easy to regain and I hope that the Scottish Government will give the petition serious consideration.

The Labour Party is committed to providing opportunities for young people across Scotland. Members have given numerous examples of how language learning can help to do that and provide significant cultural and economic benefits. Therefore, it is vital that any policy is realistic and takes into account the challenges faced by schools and education authorities.

The 1+2 policy must be fully resourced, to allow well-trained teachers and language assistants to help children develop language skills from an early age. We need enhanced partnership working between primary and secondary schools. Action must be taken to address the decline in language courses being offered in secondary schools. Support must be given to higher education institutions that provide strategically and economically important, but vulnerable, language courses.

Increased language learning is a good idea but the challenge is as the report states, that we need

“the right approach and the right resources”

to make it achievable.

11:28