NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF LANGUAGE TEACHERS
P O Box 132 260, Sylvia Park, Auckland 1644
Patron
His Excellency Lieutenant General The Right Honourable Sir Jerry Mateparae,
GNZM, QSO, Governor-General of New Zealand
A contribution to discussion on a
national languages policy for Aotearoa/New Zealand
Key issues:

The New Zealand Association of Language Teachers (NZALT) represents the interests of over
600 teachers of languages (other than English or Māori as first languages) from the primary,
secondary and tertiary sectors.

We believe that a coherent national languages policy for New Zealand must include clear and
transparent discussion of the so-called ‘international languages’, just as Waite (1992) had
done.

We contend that for a national languages policy to be truly inclusive in New Zealand it must,
as Waite himself acknowledged, take account of the importance of international languages.

The dilemma and challenge for us as a professional association is that, in the twenty years
since Waite and surrounding political messages about the importance of international
language and cultural skills, we have witnessed effectively zero growth in the numbers of
students in schools opting to take international languages to any degree of meaningful
proficiency (i.e., above the most basic or ‘beginner’ levels)

Fundamentally, a national languages policy can help by raising the profile of all languages for
New Zealanders in much the same way as Waite (1992). If it fails to do so, it cannot be said to
be promoting ‘a fair go for all’.

The reality is that, twenty years on from Waite, the acquisition of international language skills
among young New Zealanders is in many cases mediocre, to say the least. A national
languages policy that recognises this is sorely needed.
The Defining Commitments of NZALT
Advocacy / Collaboration / Communication / Consultation / Educational Excellence / Efficiency &
Continuous Improvement / Expertise / Innovation /
Networks / Service Focus / Technology
In the broader context of recognising the importance of English and Māori as first languages in New
Zealand, the New Zealand Association of Language Teachers (NZALT) is the professional organisation
that represents the interests of over 600 teachers of languages (other than English or Māori as first
languages) from the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors. Our particular interest as a
professional association is in those languages that were termed ‘international’ in the original
discussion document that represented the first attempt to introduce a coherent national languages
policy for New Zealand - Aoteareo: Speaking for ourselves (Waite, 1992). Our specific focus is on the
five common international languages currently taught as additional languages (i.e., languages other
than students’ first language) in New Zealand’s schools (Chinese, French, German, Japanese and
Spanish). Also, more broadly, we have an interest in all those international languages (such as
Indonesian, Italian, Korean and Russian) that have been taught, at one time or another, in New
Zealand’s schools, and that continue to be taught in New Zealand’s tertiary sector. We also support
the teaching and learning of any additional language in schools (including te reo Māori, Pasifika and
community languages, and classical languages).
We are mindful of the call from the Royal Society of New Zealand for views from a range of
interested parties on the current provision of language support in New Zealand society as the Royal
Society works on preparing a paper to document what is known about the efficacy of languages
policies. We are also mindful that, in its call for submissions, the Royal Society (2012) notes both
that “this year marks the twentieth anniversary of [Waite, 1992] and provides a timely opportunity
to revisit the national discussion about languages and their place in New Zealand” (¶ 2), and that the
call for submissions “aims to offer a fresh starting point for further discussion of cross-sector
approaches to language provision and policy in New Zealand” (¶ 3).
As a contribution to this ‘fresh starting point for further discussion’, this submission documents the
reasons why we believe that a coherent national languages policy for New Zealand must include
clear and transparent discussion of the so-called ‘international languages’, just as Waite (1992) had
done. That is, mindful to take on board the distinctive factors that made up New Zealand’s linguistic
landscape, Waite (1992) classified languages into several groups (Figure 1). These groupings offer a
starting point for a discrete focus on the international languages:
Notes
1
LOTEMs – Languages other than English and Māori.
2
NZSL – New Zealand Sign Language
Figure 1: Languages for New Zealand (Waite, 1992)
The Defining Commitments of NZALT
Advocacy / Collaboration / Communication / Consultation / Educational Excellence / Efficiency &
Continuous Improvement / Expertise / Innovation /
Networks / Service Focus / Technology
We are mindful that in many debates surrounding language policy and planning in New Zealand it
can often appear that Māori, Pasifika and community issues are dominant. For example, the
programme for the 2012 New Zealand Diversity Forum, in the context of which the Royal Society
held an open consultation on its languages policy initiative, suggests that presentations focused
predominantly on issues such as human rights in local communities, or for migrant workers, or for
Pacific peoples. These were presented in the context of the overarching theme of ‘Aotearoa, a fair
go for all.’
NZALT as an organisation fully supports issues of human rights for local communities, migrants, and
Māori and Pasifika peoples, and we acknowledge that the extent to which the Diversity Forum can
act as a catalyst for genuine and positive change is the extent to which it is valuable and worthwhile.
We also recognise that recent decades have witnessed a shift in national languages policies in
various Western societies towards taking greater account of minority (indigenous and migrant)
languages (Norrby & Hajek, 2011). We contend, however, that for a national languages policy to be
truly inclusive in New Zealand it must, as Waite himself acknowledged, also take account of the
importance of international languages.
Waite’s discussion of international languages had drawn a specific link between language learning
and the potential for improved national economic performance. For example, Waite quotes the
National Government’s Education Minister at the time, Alexander Lockwood Smith:
Our economic growth is linked directly to our ability to succeed in an increasingly competitive
international economy and an increasingly high-tech environment. In response to this … while
maintaining our traditional links with English-speaking countries, we must become more familiar
with the languages and cultures of the dynamic countries of East Asia and the European
Community. (Waite, 1992, p. 4, our emphasis)
The argument that New Zealand is essentially a trading nation, to a very large extent dependent on
establishing and maintaining effective relationships with trading partners all over the world (and, by
implication requiring significant proficiency in international languages and their cultures), was
underscored in several other publications of the early 1990s (e.g., Callister, 1991; Crocombe, Enright,
& Porter, 1991). Indeed, in tandem with the publication of Waite in 1992, the public political
message was that “we really must learn to speak other languages.” This was Don McKinnon’s (1992,
p. 1) argument, in his capacity as the National Party’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign
Affairs and Trade, in a speech entitled ‘English is not enough’. McKinnon went on to argue:
The curricula in New Zealand schools and courses available in universities must equip young
people with language and cultural skills. … New Zealand’s ability to earn a living – our very future
in fact – depends on young New Zealanders acquiring international language skills. (p. 1, our
emphasis)
The linking of international languages to economic advantage for New Zealand, although paramount
in the dialogue in the early 1990s, represents but one of many reasons why we believe access to an
international language is important for New Zealand’s young people. Indeed, Gallagher-Brett’s
(2004) publication documents 700 reasons for studying an additional language, grouped around 70
themes, including promoting academic skills, autonomy, citizenship, critical thinking, democracy,
diversity, equal opportunities, identity, intercultural competence, and personal and social
development. The economic advantage for New Zealand provides one lens of several lenses through
which to view the vital importance of acquiring skills in international languages.
The Defining Commitments of NZALT
Advocacy / Collaboration / Communication / Consultation / Educational Excellence / Efficiency &
Continuous Improvement / Expertise / Innovation /
Networks / Service Focus / Technology
The dilemma and challenge for us as a professional association is that, in the twenty years since
Waite and the surrounding political messages about the importance of international language and
cultural skills, we have witnessed effectively zero growth in the numbers of students in schools
opting to take international languages to any degree of meaningful proficiency (i.e., above the most
basic or ‘beginner’ levels), thereby ensuring levels of proficiency that might give students
‘international language skills’ that will help New Zealand to ‘earn a living.’
That is, we applaud the positive move, in New Zealand’s revised school curriculum (Ministry of
Education, 2007) that has created a new learning area dedicated to the learning of additional
languages, Learning Languages, and the entitlement to learning a new language that is now in place
for students in school years 7 to 10. We also applaud the initiatives that have been put in place to
strengthen provision for international languages, particularly in the intermediate school sector,
through dedicated professional development and targeted resources. These have led to growth in
the intermediate school sector.
However, several fundamental problems for the teaching and learning of international languages
remain which, in the absence of a national languages policy, may not be addressed adequately in the
foreseeable future. That is, the fact that the learning of an additional language is now an
entitlement for all students in Years 7 to 10 sounds good in theory, but effectively leads to several
problems:
1. Learning an additional language is not compulsory at any stage of schooling
2. This means that, although schools are required to offer some kind of programme in additional
languages to students in Years 7 to 10, students are not required to take up the offer
3. The entitlement is only to be applied to Years 7 to 10. There is no entitlement prior to Year 7 or
in the senior secondary Years 11 to 13 (although, having said that, we know that many schools
have offered successful programmes in additional languages to students in Years 11 to 13 for
many years, and there is, at present, no reason to think that this might change)
4. The entitlement has not led to significant gains in enrolments into languages courses in the
senior secondary years (indeed, evidence from subject enrolment statistics suggests negligible
growth at the secondary school level from 1992 to date)
5. The entitlement embraces the whole range of additional languages for New Zealand (see Figure
1 above), including English, Māori and Pasifika languages alongside the international and
classical languages. Seen from the perspective of equity and access, this is a good thing (or, put
another way, a ‘fair go for all’). In practice, this leads to a situation in which:
a. students may be offered a whole collection of languages, often delivered as short-term
‘tasters’, which have neither breadth nor depth;
b. conversely, schools may often time-table different languages at the same time, thereby
providing limited choice to students, and narrow (or no) opportunity to study more than
one language;
c. all languages are treated as equal in terms of what this means for learning. That is, the
differential demands of different languages (for example, the additional demands, for
English as first language speakers, of learning an Asian language in comparison with a
considerably more cognate, and Roman-alphabet dependent, European language, and
the time implications of this) are not taken into account;
d. students may in fact not be offered any opportunity to learn an international language.
6. The entitlement itself is something that schools and Boards of Trustees are required to be
“working towards” (Ministry of Education, 2007) (p. 44) rather than mandating. Even the
entitlement is not really an entitlement.
The Defining Commitments of NZALT
Advocacy / Collaboration / Communication / Consultation / Educational Excellence / Efficiency &
Continuous Improvement / Expertise / Innovation /
Networks / Service Focus / Technology
The above factors have significant implications for the numbers of students who may move on to
study a language at tertiary level, and for the levels of proficiency that students can reach, at both
secondary and tertiary level, in a given international language. It would seem that, despite a revised
curriculum, very little has been done to promote the interests of international language teaching
and learning in ways that have boosted numbers, interest and proficiency significantly. Additionally,
treating all languages as ‘equal’ in terms of learning means that those students who do choose to
study a language at the post-school level may often struggle because they do not have sufficient
competence to cope with the demands of tertiary level language study (this problem is particularly
acute for the Asian languages). Ultimately, a high proficiency level (or lack thereof) has implications
for future graduates, several of whom may wish to enter the teaching profession as teachers of
international languages. The ‘cycle of lack’ may therefore be perpetuated.
Hu (2005) argues:
Policy decisions on the starting age for foreign language education need to take into account a
large number of contextual and resource factors. Early instruction itself is not a sufficient
condition for effective learning to occur; there are other conditions that are required, for
example, the availability of teachers with a high level of proficiency in the target language and
professional training, rich opportunities for authentic communication in the language, ample
instructional time, teaching methodology geared to the learning needs of young children, as well
as consistent and well-designed follow-up instruction in the higher grades. (p. 18).
We contend that, if the teaching and learning of international languages (or, for that matter, any
additional language) is to have any opportunity for real and lasting success in New Zealand, with
learners of international languages being able to reach the highest levels of proficiency, Hu’s (2005)
principles must be taken into account. In turn, we would argue that a national languages policy for
New Zealand must include, just as the Waite report did, a discussion of the fundamental importance
of international languages for New Zealand alongside recommendations to strengthen international
language provision in schools and universities.
Indeed, we recognise that crucial in the decision to introduce the new learning area Learning
Languages were two international critiques (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2002;
National Foundation for Educational Research, 2002), both of which noted the low priority given to
learning languages other than the language of instruction in the original curriculum framework
document (Ministry of Education, 1993). We contend that failure to deal with the low take-up of
study in international languages via support from a national languages policy will open us up to
further international critique.
How can a national languages policy help in securing more meaningful and substantial gains in
international language proficiency?
In the interests of promoting ‘a fair go for all’, this submission has isolated international languages as
a discrete component of the linguistic landscape in Aotearoa New Zealand. Our focus is not
intended to be exclusive. Rather, we have wished to throw the spotlight on international languages
as a particular dimension of language use in Aotearoa New Zealand at this time, so that ultimately
the arguments around international languages can be laid alongside those around indigenous,
heritage and community languages, and a genuine fair go for all can be achieved.
Fundamentally, then, a national languages policy can help by raising the profile of all languages for
New Zealanders in much the same way as Waite (1992). That is, on the one hand, a national
The Defining Commitments of NZALT
Advocacy / Collaboration / Communication / Consultation / Educational Excellence / Efficiency &
Continuous Improvement / Expertise / Innovation /
Networks / Service Focus / Technology
languages policy must address key problems for New Zealand around the maintenance and
enhancement of Māori, Pasifika and community languages. As an organisation, we fully support this,
and applaud the efforts being made to promote a fair go for these languages and their peoples. On
the other hand, a national languages policy must address parallel key problems for New Zealand
around the maintenance and enhancement of international languages. If it fails to do so, it cannot
be said to be promoting ‘a fair go for all’. We contend that part of addressing key problems for
international language learning in New Zealand must be to challenge the Government to look
carefully at its provision for language learning (whatever the language), particularly in schools. This
careful look needs to include:
1. considering some level of compulsion to study an additional language at some stage of
schooling, thereby ensuring that there is at least some access to additional language learning for
all (current experience shows that where there is wiggle room (“working towards …”) schools
and learners opt out);
2. considering encouraging opportunities for students to study both Māori (and/or a
Pasifika/community language) and an international language at some stage of schooling, thereby
broadening students’ choices and experiences;
3. investing in high quality tertiary and teacher education programmes that can focus on providing
not only graduates (for society) but also teachers (for schools) “with a high level of proficiency in
the target language and professional training” (Hu, 2005, p. 18, our emphasis). In turn this will
facilitate high quality learning experiences for students, especially at the higher levels.
We recognise that the priorities of Government in 2012 may be very different to priorities in 1992.
Nevertheless, the political messages for New Zealanders in the early 1990s, and reinforced through
the Waite report, arguably have on-going significance:
 “We really must learn to speak other languages” because our future “depends on young New
Zealanders acquiring international language skills” (McKinnon, 1992, p. 1).
 “Our economic growth is linked directly to our ability to succeed in an increasingly
competitive international economy … we must become more familiar with the languages
and cultures of the dynamic countries of East Asia and the European Community” (Smith,
quoted in Waite, 1992, p. 4)
 Our education system “must adapt … we need a work-force which … has an international
and multicultural perspective” (Ministry of Education, 1993, p. 1).
These ‘internationally-focused’ political aspirations of twenty years ago are framed as imperatives …
things that must occur. The reality is that, twenty years on, the acquisition of international language
skills among young New Zealanders is in many cases mediocre, to say the least, and arguably
insufficient to contribute substantially to these priorities. A national languages policy that
recognises this, alongside the promotion of ‘a fair go for all’, is sorely needed.
David Hall
President, NZALT
Martin East
Junior Vice-President, NZALT
It should be noted that the views expressed in this submission, whilst made by the President and Junior Vice President of the New Zealand
Association of Language Teachers on behalf of the Executive of NZALT, do not necessary reflect the views of
all members of the Association
The Defining Commitments of NZALT
Advocacy / Collaboration / Communication / Consultation / Educational Excellence / Efficiency &
Continuous Improvement / Expertise / Innovation /
Networks / Service Focus / Technology
References
Australian Council for Educational Research. (2002). Report on the New Zealand national curriculum. Melbourne, Australia:
ACER.
Callister, P. (1991). Expanding our horizons: New Zealand in the global economy. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Planning
Council.
Crocombe, G. T., Enright, M. J., & Porter, M. E. (1991). Upgrading New Zealand's competitive advantage. Auckland, NZ:
Oxford University Press.
Gallagher-Brett, A. (2004). Seven hundred reasons for studying languages. Southampton, UK: University of Southampton
Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies.
Hu, G. (2005). English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy, 4, 5-24.
McKinnon, D. (1992). Minister of Education and Trade. Speech presented to the Asia 2000 ‘Realising the Opportunities’
Seminar, May 1992. Press release from the office of the Minister of External Relations and Trade.
Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media, Ministry of
Education.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
st
National Foundation for Educational Research. (2002). New Zealand stocktake: An international critique. Retrieved 1
March, 2004, from
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=7258&indexid=1004&indexparentid=10
72.
Norrby, C., & Hajek, J. (Eds.). (2011). Uniformity and diversity in language policy: Global perspectives. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Royal Society of New Zealand. (2012). Consultation on languages in Aotearoa. Alert Newsletter 726. Retrieved 25th August,
2012, from http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/2012/07/19/alert-newsletter-726/.
Waite, J. (1992). Aoteareo: Speaking for ourselves. Part A: The overview; Part B: The issues. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of
Education.
The Defining Commitments of NZALT
Advocacy / Collaboration / Communication / Consultation / Educational Excellence / Efficiency &
Continuous Improvement / Expertise / Innovation /
Networks / Service Focus / Technology