Petition
Lesser-taught Languages and Cultures (University Teaching Funding) (PE1395)
Item 2 is further consideration of PE1395, which concerns funding for lesser-taught languages at Scottish universities. We discussed the petition at our meeting on 4 June and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. Members have seen the responses that we received from both parties.
We have also received letters from the University of Glasgow and, of course, from the petitioner. Those are included in the meeting papers. The committee must now consider what further action—if any—it wishes to take on the petition. I invite comments from members.
I would like to make quite a few comments on the petition, which I have read extremely carefully. I have also listened to debates in the Public Petitions Committee and to the deliberations of the European and External Relations Committee, which was considering the overall strategy for languages.
I have two very specific points to make. First, I do not see it as being the role of this committee to get involved in the management of universities and their courses. If we were to do that with this petition, we would open ourselves to getting involved in the issue when it arises in any faculty or course; we would be in danger of going down that management road, which would put us in a difficult position, not least with the University of Glasgow.
Secondly, having said that, I think that the petition raises a significant issue about the generality of delivery of language teaching through the education system, whether at school, in colleges or in universities. Given that the Government has a very specific programme to look at the strategy for, and therefore the funding of, the institutions, the petition raises an important question about how we look after the best interests of language teaching, whether of majority languages or minority languages. From that angle, the committee needs to be much more proactive in questioning the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on how that is being pursued, and in particular, in questioning the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council on whether we are delivering effective language teaching right across the education system. I recommend that we pursue that line rather than pursue the specific issue in the petition; although I am sure that there is an issue, it is difficult for us as a committee to get involved in that case.
I will come back to the specifics of each member’s views on the petition, but for now I am asking for general comments. That was very helpful. Thank you, Liz.
As Liz Smith said, the petition has raised important questions about, and issues around, how we value lesser-taught languages. It is obvious that if the Scottish Government wants to embark on an ambitious one-plus-two model, it needs to ensure that languages continue to be taught at Scottish universities. Otherwise, it could put that model at risk. I do not believe that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Michael Russell, addresses that point in his response and there is a danger of a disconnect between a laudable national aim and what is happening on the ground.
We should write again to Mike Russell, to express that view, and to ask him to consider how not just French, Spanish and Chinese, but lesser-taught languages such as Polish and Czech fit into the Government’s strategy. We have expressed our views on the matter; regardless of what we agree to do with the petition, the specific issue is now a matter for the cabinet secretary, the funding council and the universities. I certainly agree with Liz Smith’s suggestion that the committee needs to scrutinise further the Government’s overall aim and strategy for languages.
I echo that. I have misgivings about entering a situation in which we would appear to be micromanaging what happens in individual universities; however, if we aggregate that, the danger is that we would not take an interest in what happens in any university and, therefore, the strategic objective on languages—majority or minority languages—would not be achieved, which would be a concern for the committee. The only way we can really prosecute the matter is at strategic level, with the cabinet secretary and the funding council. We can do that either by writing to them directly or by taking evidence from them on the wider issue.
I agree generally with the suggestion that we close the petition but follow the matter up by sending a letter to the cabinet secretary. We should note that the cabinet secretary and the funding council are pretty robust in their assessment that modern language provision is diverse and that the universities are providing a balance. I do not see any problem with writing to gain further information.
I certainly agree with what seems to be a collective view about interfering with the ability of an organisation to manage its own affairs. If we did that, we would be open to accusations that we were going beyond our role by micromanaging individual universities and interfering in decisions on the courses that are offered. We should write to the cabinet secretary; that is a reasonable suggestion.
The funding council’s letter to the committee states:
“we have asked institutions to make specific reference to modern language provision in their Outcome Agreements for 2014-15 onwards”.
I want to separate two things out. There is the petition, which has brought a very important issue to our attention, and there is the committee’s ability to add value. It might be an idea for us to have, as part of our work programme, a more detailed discussion about how we examine teaching of modern languages. Obviously, we note that another committee has already examined languages and we do not want to repeat work that has already been done. There is, however, important work for this committee to do and we should have the discussion in that context. We should consider outcome agreements in particular, given what the funding council said in its letter. We have the opportunity to examine the issue closely. As Clare Adamson and others have said, we can write to the cabinet secretary and we will have future opportunities to seek the views of the funding council.
Are members content to close the petition but to bring the subject matter back to the committee via our work programme, and to write to the cabinet secretary in the meantime?
Members indicated agreement.