Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 19 Nov 2008
Meeting date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Official Report
249KB pdf
Petition
Foreign Languages Policy (PE1022)
I reconvene the meeting and we move to item 3 on the agenda, which is consideration of petition PE1022, on modern languages. The committee has concluded its agreed work on the petition and we are now asked to consider what further action—if any—we want to take. It has been suggested that we may consider closing the petition. I seek members' views.
I feel that this is a slightly unsatisfactory end to the petition. Although we do not get involved in processing curricular issues, when the petition was first presented to us we all agreed that it raised an important issue regarding language development policy in general. I think that we were hoping for something more positive than what has been delivered. The responses offer little for us to hold on to; there has been little advance in the priority that is given to languages.
I am reluctant to accept the response from the cabinet secretary as the final word. We had hoped that the report from the Scottish funding council might suggest a way of making progress and might offer a clear policy focus, but it does not. The report simply said that the issue is important and has to be balanced against other issues; it does not give any real priority to languages and it does not map a way forward.
The cabinet secretary's response referred to the new baccalaureate and the curriculum for excellence. That does not fill me with reassurance. The curriculum for excellence has been delayed for a year, and we have yet to see the baccalaureate.
Rather than being satisfied or encouraged, I feel that the petition is ending with a whimper rather than a bang. Instead of it ending here, would it be possible for us to write to the petitioner for his views on the responses? I am not saying that that would take us much further forward, but I do not want the petition to end on a down note. I would like to hear the petitioner's views on some of the positive suggestions that we could still pursue. We should delay closing the petition until after we have heard those views.
This issue is huge, but modern languages are just one aspect of the whole curriculum. The debate will be much broader. The Government is currently digesting the results of the consultation exercise on Scottish Qualifications Authority exams. The universities are pitching in as well. There is still time to discuss the issue that is raised by the petition: Ken Macintosh was right to say that it would be interesting to hear the petitioner's views. However, the issue fits into a much broader context. I think the Government sees it that way, as well. Scope exists for discussions on the broader perspectives of the curriculum, how they measure up against the curriculum for excellence, and how they relate to the new Scottish Qualifications Authority exams and to what the universities and colleges are saying.
Such discussions will go on for some time yet. It would therefore be interesting to be a bit more focused about specific requests—such as the one that is made in the petition—rather than simply saying that we want a subject to be taught more and taught better. We need to know exactly what the Government is proposing, within the context of the proposals for SQA reform and the curriculum.
I associate myself with what has just been said. Discussions on the curriculum for excellence, and on how we make progress with qualifications, will probably be with us for a considerable time.
I have no problem with Ken Macintosh's suggestion that we ask the petitioner what he thinks of the responses that we have received. I would be content to have the petition left still on the stocks, so to speak. We know that we will come back to the issue that is raised by the petition during our discussions on wider issues such as the curriculum for excellence and qualifications. I would be uncomfortable about closing the petition. The debate will open in another way during the coming months, so I am happy to go along with Ken Macintosh's suggestion and to see where it takes us.
No other member has asked to speak. It appears that the committee agrees that we should write to the petitioner to seek his views.
Liz Smith made the valid point that the committee will return to the wider issues. The petitioner's views will be factored in, although they will not be the only views that we will consider when we discuss the wider issues of delayed implementation of the curriculum for excellence and the introduction of the baccalaureate.
Does the committee agree to keep the petition open, to write to the petitioner enclosing copies of the responses that we have received, and to seek his views, which we will consider at a later date?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of agenda item 3. I remind the committee that our next formal meeting will be on 3 December. However, we will meet informally next week for a round-table discussion with voluntary organisations and charities about the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.
Meeting closed at 12:31.