from 'special experiment' to state specialist language ... · the vsl the “lynchpin of...

From “special experiment” to state specialist language school:

The Victorian School of Languages 1935 - 2015

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

from

SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

(Faculty of Health, Arts and Design)

By

CATHERINE BRYANT

BA (Hons) (Melb), MA (Thesis) (Melb), Grad Dip Ed (Secondary) (Monash)

2016

ii

Abstract This thesis is a historical investigation of the Victorian School of Languages (VSL) in the state of Victoria, Australia. The VSL began tentatively in 1935 as a “special experiment” on the margins of state education, teaching Japanese and Italian on Saturday mornings at MacRobertson Girls’ High School in Melbourne. This was during the interwar period of “aggressive” monolingualism in Australia. In 2015, in its eightieth year, the school offers classes in 49 languages to 13,200 students in 40 centres via face-to-face classes, mostly on a Saturday morning, as well as 1,400 students via distance education. Today, scholars consider the VSL the “lynchpin of Victoria’s heritage language program.”1 It has also been recognised by linguists internationally. One overseas scholar states: “The pioneering and widely-known policies and practices in the Victorian School of Languages (VSL) in Melbourne, Australia constitute an excellent ‘good practice’ that can be adopted in the European context.”2 Despite this recognition, and the VSL’s longevity, few scholars have attempted to explain how it made the transformation from an experimental, pilot operation on the outskirts of the education system to an officially legitimated state specialist language school. This thesis aims to bring the VSL’s untold story out of the shadows and into the light. It aims to redefine the “grand narrative” of the history of Australian education to include this important institution, which has up until now, been largely ignored by scholars. In many ways, the VSL’s story can be understood as a journey towards recognition and legitimacy, not only for the school itself, but also for the many communities that it represents. This thesis is “both a story and a study”3 and it utilises a combined research methodology of historical analysis and theory. It draws extensively on primary sources such as archival documents and oral history interviews. This thesis presents a chronological narrative and an analysis of the origins, the growth and the development of the VSL. It uses several theoretical lenses to investigate the way that this non-conformist and marginalised school, together with its language communities, managed to gain and maintain legitimacy in the Victorian education system. By presenting this historical analysis of the VSL, this thesis aims to enrich the existing literature about the history of language education in Victoria, which has up until now been limited and fragmented.

1 L Willoughby, ‘Heritage LOTEs at VCE level: student perspectives on current programs’, Monash University Linguistics Papers, vol. 5, no. 1, 2006, p. 3. 2 G Extra, K Yaǧmur & Language Rich Europe, Trends in Policies and Practices in Multilingual Europe, Cambridge University Press, on behalf of the British Council, 2012, p. 38. Retrieved 10 September 2013, http://www.language-rich.eu/fileadmin/content/pdf/LRE_English_version_final_01.pdf. 3 Butterfield quoted in B Bailyn, ‘The Challenge of Modern Historiography’, The American Historical Review, vol. 87, no. 1, 1982, pp. 1-24, p. 7.

iii

Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere thanks to my Principal Supervisor, Associate Professor Bruno Mascitelli at Swinburne University, who generously provided unwavering encouragement, enthusiasm, advice, feedback and support throughout my entire candidature. I would also like to express my gratitude to my second supervisor, Professor Nita Cherry at Swinburne University, for her expertise and guidance, particularly in the use of theory throughout this research project. I would also like to thank my external supervisor, Dr Hayriye Avara from Hacettepe University, Ankara, who provided support and guidance while she was a visiting language advisor at the Victorian School of Languages. This PhD would not have been able to proceed without the full support of the VSL School Council and I thank them for selecting me as the candidate to conduct this special research project. I also express my thanks to the family of the late Professor Michael Clyne, in particular Dr Irene Donohoue Clyne for agreeing to allow his name to be used for this special PhD scholarship. I am also grateful to the senior staff at the VSL, in particular Frank Merlino and Stefo Stojanovski, for their support and for opening many doors and introducing me to many staff and friends of the VSL school community. There were many members of the school community who generously shared their time to tell me their stories, donated materials and gave me access to their networks, for the data collection for this PhD. I am also grateful to the many other research participants in the broader languages education field in Victoria who also gave up their time to share their stories, experiences and knowledge of the VSL. There are several people who helped me during the data collection process, and who generously donated their time and expertise. Anne Bridges and Wendy Taylor at the Palladians Association spent many hours searching their database of former MacRobertson Girls’ High School students for women whose names appeared on the very early rolls of the Saturday language classes, and they kindly contacted many women for me. Margie Burton of the Melbourne High School Old Boys’ Association also donated many hours of her time to contact former Melbourne High School students who attended the Saturday language classes. Melbourne High School historian Alan Gregory also donated his time looking through my list of former Melbourne High School students and provided advice about their current contact details. Finally Peter Bryce, the former Principal at University High School generously spent many hours searching his school’s database of former staff and students to locate current contact information for students who attended Saturday language classes at University High School. Because of the generous help of these people, I was able to conduct interviews with several people who had attended the school in its earliest decades. Finally, the biggest thanks goes to my family, without whom I would not have been able to complete this research project. I would like to thank my husband Sam and my daughter Zoe, for their constant love, patience and support, and to my parents and my parents-in-law for generously providing endless and unwavering support for me as well as my family throughout my PhD journey.

iv

Declaration

I, Catherine Bryant, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy from the Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia:

• Contains no material which has been accepted for the award to myself of any other degree or diploma, except where due reference is made in the text of this thesis;

• To the best of my knowledge contains no material previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the text of this thesis;

• Has been approved by the Swinburne University Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC), Application 2012/282 and I certify that all conditions pertaining to this ethics clearance have been properly met and that annual reports and a final report have been submitted.

Signed

Catherine Bryant

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ ii

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... iii

Declaration ...................................................................................................................iv

Table of figures ......................................................................................................... xiii

List of abbreviations..................................................................................................xiv

Chapter 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................1

1.1 The research problem and its justification ...........................................................................1

1.2 Aims and significance of this study.....................................................................................2

1.3 The Victorian School of Languages ....................................................................................3

1.4 The origins of this research project......................................................................................4

1.5 The research questions and the research methodology........................................................6

1.6 Outline of thesis chapters.....................................................................................................7

1.7 A clarification of key definitions and terminology..............................................................9

1.8 A note about footnotes .......................................................................................................10

Chapter 2. Literature Review....................................................................................11

2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................11

Section 1: Languages ...............................................................................................................12

2.1.1 A definition for languages .......................................................................................12

2.1.2 A definition for speakers of languages....................................................................14

2.1.3 Language policy and planning.................................................................................15

2.1.4 Language-in-education planning .............................................................................17

2.1.5 Micro, grassroots and bottom up language planning...............................................18

Section 2. Languages in Australia ...........................................................................................19

vi

2.2.1 The Australian context ............................................................................................19

2.2.2 Language policy in Australia...................................................................................20

2.2.3 Official national language policy documents in Australia ......................................22

2.2.4 Multiculturalism in Australia ..................................................................................28

2.2.6 Multiculturalism and its impact on languages.........................................................31

Section 3. Languages education in schools .............................................................................32

2.3.1 The current picture of language education in Australian schools ...........................32

2.3.2 The current picture of language education in Victorian schools .............................32

2.3.3 Senior secondary schooling and languages .............................................................33

2.3.4 Current problems and issues in language education................................................34

2.3.5 Providers of languages education...........................................................................36

2.3.6 Complementary providers: Community Language Schools (CLS)........................36

2.3.7 Complementary providers: State specialist language schools................................38

2.3.8 The Victorian School of Languages ........................................................................40

2.4 The literature gap ...............................................................................................................50

2.5 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................52

Chapter 3. Research Methodology............................................................................53

3.1 Introduction: A story and a study ......................................................................................53

3.2 Conceptual framework.......................................................................................................54

3.3 The literature review and the literature gap .......................................................................56

3.4 Developing the research questions ....................................................................................57

3.5 The Story: Developing the narrative using the history method .........................................57

3.5.1 What is history?.......................................................................................................58

3.5.2 The history method..................................................................................................59

3.5.3 Historical analysis ...................................................................................................60

3.5.4 Synthesis or interpretation.......................................................................................61

3.5.5 Bias ..........................................................................................................................62

vii

3.5.6 School histories .......................................................................................................62

3.5.7 Narrative and theory in historiography....................................................................64

3.5.8 Presentation of the narrative....................................................................................65

3.6 Data collection ...................................................................................................................67

3.6.1 Oral history..............................................................................................................68

3.6.2 The approach for gathering oral histories................................................................69

3.7 The Study: The applicability and suitability of particular theories ...................................71

3.7.1 Organisations and their claims for legitimacy.........................................................75

3.7.2 The Organizational Saga .........................................................................................77

3.7.3 Heritage language subjects and their claims for legitimacy....................................79

3.8 Findings and contribution to knowledge ...........................................................................80

Chapter 4. Beginnings: Special classes in languages 1935-1964.............................81

4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................81

Section 1. Historical context of language education in Victoria .............................................81

4.1.1 Languages in Australia prior to 1900 ......................................................................81

4.1.2 The “White Australia” policy..................................................................................83

4.1.3 Attitudes towards languages in the early twentieth century....................................84

4.1.4 The education system in Victoria in the early twentieth century ............................84

4.1.5 Languages other than English during the great depression and the war years ........85

4.1.6 Language education in the school system in 1935 ..................................................87

Section 2: Beginnings ..............................................................................................................89

4.2.1 The special experiment of 1935 ..............................................................................89

4.2.2 The establishment of Japanese ................................................................................89

4.2.3 Key personnel: J.A. Seitz ........................................................................................92

4.2.4 The push for Italian .................................................................................................93

4.2.5 Fluctuation and uncertainty .....................................................................................99

4.2.6 Strategic factors .....................................................................................................102

viii

4.2.7 A growing pool of teachers ...................................................................................103

4.2.8 Student recollections of Japanese..........................................................................103

4.2.9 The 1940s and the war years .................................................................................104

4.2.10 Italian students and the Italian language .............................................................107

4.2.11 The introduction of Dutch ...................................................................................108

4.2.12 Student recollections of Italian............................................................................109

4.2.13 Further diversification in languages ....................................................................110

4.2.14 Student recollections of Russian .........................................................................111

4.2.15 The 1950s: stability and gradual growth .............................................................113

4.2.16 Growth gathers momentum .................................................................................114

4.2.17 Financial matters are reviewed............................................................................115

4.2.18 A push for Asian languages.................................................................................117

4.2.19 New pedagogies for language learning ...............................................................118

Section 3. Beginnings: Discussion and analysis ....................................................................119

4.3.1 Meyer’s theories and the origins of the VSL.........................................................119

4.3.2 Micro and macro language policy and planning and the origins of the VSL........123

4.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................124

Chapter 5. Growth and the journey towards recognition 1965 – 1987 ...............125

5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................125

Section 1: The SSML and its journey towards recognition ...................................................127

5.1.1 Growth at the Saturday School of Languages (SSL).............................................127

5.1.2 A gradual shift in the language teaching establishment ........................................129

5.1.3 The establishment of Modern Greek at the Saturday School of Modern Languages (SSML) ...........................................................................................................................130

5.1.4 A review of remuneration for teachers in charge ..................................................131

5.1.5 Modern Greek triggers a domino effect ................................................................132

5.1.6 Lines are again drawn............................................................................................135

ix

5.1.7 Regulations for new languages are set down ........................................................137

5.1.8 Increases in student enrolments puts pressure on centres .....................................138

5.1.9 The diverse student population..............................................................................139

5.1.10 Staffing and pay difficulties ................................................................................140

5.1.11 Bridging the middle school gap brings further growth .......................................141

5.1.12 A new headmaster and a heavy workload ...........................................................141

5.1.13 The abolition of fees doubles student enrolments ...............................................143

5.1.14 High School Certificate accreditation adds to the snowball effect......................144

5.1.15 The community languages movement.................................................................147

5.1.16 Student reflections on language study and identity.............................................148

5.1.17 Defining the student body ...................................................................................149

5.1.18 Departmental acknowledgement of the school....................................................150

5.1.19 Mr Joe Abiuso becomes Headmaster ..................................................................152

5.1.20 A permanent staffing structure is established......................................................153

5.1.21 A boost in mainstream support for language education ......................................154

5.1.22 The dominant languages open up opportunities for others .................................156

5.1.23 Moves to formalise the SSML gather momentum ..............................................157

5.1.24 The long running dispute about pay arrangements..............................................158

5.1.25 The breakthrough of 1987: the SSML is upgraded .............................................159

Section 2: Discussion and analysis of the SSML and its journey towards recognition.........160

5.2.1 The Organizational Saga of the SSML..................................................................160

5.2.2 The SSML benefits from a shift in institutional contexts......................................164

5.2.3 Heritage language groups and their quest for legitimacy......................................166

5.2.4 Macro and micro language policy considerations .................................................167

5.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................169

x

Chapter 6. The Victorian School of Languages 1988-1994...................................171

6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................171

Section 1: The Victorian School of Languages .....................................................................172

6.1.1 1988: The optimism of a new era ..........................................................................172

6.1.2 Government support divides languages.................................................................174

6.1.3 A new industrial agreement boosts the positive outlook.......................................175

6.1.4 The remaining recommendations for reform.........................................................176

6.1.5 Enrolment trends continue to shift ........................................................................178

6.1.6 An unorthodox appointment of a new Principal sparks controversy ....................179

6.1.7 The 1991 review of the VSL .................................................................................181

6.1.8 School council “reform” or whitewash?................................................................184

6.1.9 Community demands for new languages continue................................................186

6.1.10 The creation of the Area Manager positions .......................................................187

6.1.11 Staff reflections on the reforms to the VSL.........................................................188

6.1.12 A change of government brings more uncertainty and tension...........................189

6.1.13 The push to continue with the proposed reforms ................................................190

6.1.14 The government’s prioritisation of languages.....................................................193

6.1.15 The VSL and the Correspondence School merge................................................194

6.1.16 1994: the VSL in a powerful position .................................................................195

6.1.17 Frank Merlino becomes Principal .......................................................................197

6.1.18 Drawing the line at 1995: a methodological choice ............................................197

Section 2: Theoretical interpretations ....................................................................................198

6.2.1 The institutionalised contexts of the VSL .............................................................198

6.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................202

Chapter 7. Discussion: Issues in gaining and maintaining legitimacy, answers to research questions, and contribution to knowledge ..............................................203

7.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................203

xi

Section 1: Heritage language subjects and the ways they gain and maintain legitimacy ......205

7.1.1 Conformity and compliance and the maintenance of legitimacy ..........................205

7.1.2 Competing political interests and the risks to legitimacy......................................207

7.1.3 The risks of staffing dilemmas ..............................................................................211

7.1.4 The risks of a state government agenda ................................................................213

7.1.5 The VSL as a flexibility mechanism .....................................................................216

Section 2: Issues in gaining and maintaining legitimacy for a state specialist language school...............................................................................................................................................217

7.2.1 The legitimated VSL shapes its relational networks .............................................217

7.2.2 Competitive relations between the VSL and mainstream schools ........................218

7.2.3 Does the VSL let mainstream schools “off the hook”? ................................................221

7.2.4 Is complementary language provision a “second best” option?............................222

7.2.5 The VSL as supporter of the mainstream sector ...................................................224

7.2.6 Competitive relations between the VSL and community language schools .........225

7.2.7 The VSL’s relationship with community language schools..................................227

7.2.8 The legitimacy of VCE level provision.................................................................229

7.2.9 Combined arrangements........................................................................................230

7.2.10 The VSL as supporter of the community language schools sector .....................231

7.2.11 The VSL as a “soft place to fall” for newly arrived communities ......................232

7.2.12 The realities of the “marketplace” of complementary language provision .........233

7.2.13 Future directions..................................................................................................234

Section 3: Research questions and contribution to knowledge..............................................235

7.3.1 Question 1: How did the VSL and its language communities gain and maintain legitimacy within the education system?........................................................................235

7.3.2 Question 2: How was the VSL shaped by “macro” and “micro” language policy and planning?..................................................................................................................241

7.3.3 Reflections on methodology and theory................................................................245

7.3.4 Contribution to knowledge ....................................................................................248

xii

Chapter 8. Conclusion..............................................................................................250

8.1 Opening remarks..............................................................................................................250

8.2 The research questions and their rationale.......................................................................251

8.3 Answers to research questions .........................................................................................251

8.4 This study’s contribution to the literatures ......................................................................255

8.5 Implications of this new knowledge ................................................................................258

8.6 Limitations .......................................................................................................................259

8.7 Areas for further research ................................................................................................259

References .................................................................................................................261

Appendices ................................................................................................................292

Appendix 1. Consent information statement and informed consent form.............................292

Appendix 2: Guide to interview questions ............................................................................296

Appendix 3: Evidence of ethics approval ..............................................................................297

xiii

Table of figures

Figure 3.1 Conceptual framework ........................................................................................................ 55

Fig. 6.1 Enrolments in select languages at VSL, 1983-1993 ............................................................. 178

xiv

List of abbreviations Abbreviation Term ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority AFMLTA Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations AIMA Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs ALLP Australian Language and Literacy Policy ALP Australian Labor Party AMEP Australian Migrant Education Program CCAFL Collaborative Curriculum and Assessment Framework for Languages CISS Chief Inspector of Secondary Schools CLA Community Languages Australia CLS Community Language Schools CTMLS The Committee on the Teaching of Migrant languages in Schools DEC Distance Education Centre DECV Distance Education Centre Victoria DEECD Department of Education and Early Childhood Development DSE Directorate of School Education EAL English as an Additional Language EFT Equivalent Full Time ESL English as a Second Language FL Foreign Language FOSC Fields of Studies Committees GHS Girls’ High School HSC High School Certificate L1 First Language L2 Second Language LAC Local Administrative Committee LOTE Languages Other Than English LPP Language Policy and Planning MACLOTE Ministerial Advisory Council on Languages Other Than English MACMME Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant

Education MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth

Affairs MHS Melbourne High School MLTAV Modern Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria NAFLaSSL National Assessment Framework for Languages at Senior Secondary

Level NALSAS National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools NALSSP National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools Program NPL National Policy on Languages PROV Public Records Office of Victoria SSL Saturday School of Languages SSML Saturday School of Modern Languages TAFE Tertiary and Further Education

xv

TRB Teachers’ Registration Board UHS University High School VASS Victorian Assessment Software System VCAA Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority VCAB Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board VCE Victorian Certificate of Education VISE Victorian Institute of Secondary Education VPRS Victorian Public Record Series VSL Victorian School of Languages VSTA Victorian Secondary Teachers’ Association VUSEB Victorian Universities and Schools Examinations Board

Chapter 1. Introduction

1


1.1 The research problem and its justification

This thesis is a historical investigation of the Victorian School of Languages (VSL) in the

state of Victoria, Australia. It aims to bring the VSL’s remarkable story out of the shadows

and into the light. It aims to redefine the “grand narrative” of the history of Australian

education to include this important institution, which has up until now, been largely ignored

by scholars. Over its eighty-year history, from 1935 to 2015, the VSL has gone through a

dramatic transformation. It began tentatively as a “special experiment”, but today it is an

officially recognised state specialist language school. The VSL is a unique institution, and the

same can be said of its untold history, which is completely unlike that of any other school. In

many ways, the VSL’s story can be understood as a journey towards recognition and

legitimacy, not only for the school itself, but also for the many communities that it represents.

For the first fifty years of its history, the VSL was not an officially recognised school and it

existed on the sidelines of the Victorian education system. The VSL’s story is almost entirely

absent from the “grand narrative” of the history of Australian schooling and its existence has

largely remained hidden for its eighty-year history. Few have attempted to explain how it

underwent the transformation from “special experiment” to what it is today. The handful of

studies that do mention the VSL tend to be narrow in focus, piecemeal or unpublished. Little

is known about how it grew and developed over time, and how it was shaped by the

ideological shifts that took place throughout the periods of assimilationism, integrationism

and multiculturalism in Australia.

The absence of scholarly knowledge about the VSL’s origins and development is problematic

for the history of language education and for applied linguistics in this country. As a

“complementary provider” which delivers language programs in an out of hours setting, the

VSL plays a very important part in completing the overall picture of language provision.

Without a detailed explanation of the VSL’s history, these bodies of knowledge remain

incomplete.


2

This chapter introduces what this study is about and it explains why this study was

undertaken. It includes an explanation about the origins of this research project, as well as a

brief overview of the research problem, the research questions and the methodology. This

chapter also intends to provide the reader with a “roadmap” for what is to come in each of the

following chapters, as well as a brief explanation of the terminology that is used throughout

this thesis.

1.2 Aims and significance of this study

This study uses a combination of historical analysis and theory to extend the discourse about

the history of language education in this country, using the case of the VSL as a specific

example. It also aims to contribute to the literature about the way that schools gain and

maintain legitimacy. It will analyse a real-life example of the way that one non-conformist

and marginalised school, together with its subject communities, managed to gain and

maintain legitimacy in the Victorian education system. It will also analyse the impact that this

newfound legitimacy had on the VSL’s relational networks and how it in fact enhanced the

Victorian education system. Documenting the school’s origins and development will provide

a direct benefit for the VSL community and it will assist in raising the school’s profile.

This study is significant because it aims to make a scholarly contribution to the fields of

applied linguistics, in particular the areas of language education and language policy. It will

do this by providing an analysis of the role of the VSL in the Victorian education system, and

by providing an interpretation of the way that the VSL interacted with language policy. It

intends to provide insights into real-life examples of community language interests

successfully co-existing with mainstream language education in a State system.

Internationally, this study will be useful for academics that are researching migrant language

communities in other transnational contexts. In an era of globalization when transnational

movement is increasing, these concerns are valid and contemporary.


3

1.3 The Victorian School of Languages

The VSL is a Victorian government school that provides after hours and distance education to

primary and secondary students who do not have access to the study of the language of their

choice in their mainstream school. The particularity of the school is in the complementary

role it plays in supporting mainstream schools in the delivery of language programs on a

parallel basis. In 2015, in its eightieth year, it offers 49 languages to 14,600 students in 40

centres across metropolitan and country Victoria, via both face-to-face classes and distance

education, possibly making it the largest single provider of languages education in Australia.

The Victorian Education Department highlights the VSL as one of Victoria’s strengths in its

plan for implementing its current vision for language education.1 One Australian scholar has

called the VSL the “lynchpin of Victoria’s heritage language program.”2 Overseas scholars

have also noted the school’s significance. The linguist Extra believes that the VSL is relevant

to the European context because it has “model-building significance for other multilingual

immigrant societies”3 and “The pioneering and widely-known policies and practices in the

Victorian School of Languages (VSL) in Melbourne, Australia constitute an excellent ‘good

practice’ that can be adopted in the European context.”4

Yet despite this recognition, the VSL’s remarkable history has remained largely untold. With

its sole focus on the languages part of the curriculum in an out of hours setting, the VSL is a

non-traditional school, and it has a unique structure. For much of its history, it was not

considered an official school, and it existed on the margins of the state education system. Its

origins date back to 1935, when it began tentatively as a “special experiment.” It was set up

as a small, isolated initiative by officials in the Victorian Education Department.5 Several

classes in languages were held on Saturday mornings at MacRobertson Girls’ High School, in

Melbourne. This took place during the interwar years, which were a period of “aggressive

1 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Languages – expanding your world: Plan to implement The Victorian Government’s Vision for Languages Education 2013–2025, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Melbourne, Victoria, 2013. Retrieved 11 March 2015, http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/languagesvisionplan.pdf 2 Willoughby 2006, p. 3. 3 Cited in M Clyne, Australia's Language Potential, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2005, p. 170 4 Extra, Yaǧmur & Language Rich Europe 2012, p. 38. 5 B Mascitelli and F Merlino, ‘By accident or design? The origins of the Victorian School of Languages’, Babel, vol. 46 no. 2/3, September 2011, p. 41.


4

monolingualism” in Australia.6 Significantly, the first languages taught were Japanese and

Italian, languages of two countries with which Australia had strained relations during the war

years.7

Over the decades, as the language classes continued, student enrolments swelled, the classes

grew significantly in number and they diversified to include many other languages.

Eventually, the classes started to become known collectively as a school, and in 1971 it

became known as the Saturday School of Modern Languages (SSML). In the 1980s, as a

testament to its success, the SSML was used as a model for other states in Australia that were

seeking to establish similar language schools.8 It was not until January 1988, more than fifty

years after its origins, that the school was at last given recognition as an official, stand-alone

state school with its own governing school council. With this change, it became known by its

current name, the Victorian School of Languages (VSL).

1.4 The origins of this research project

This study was supported by a three-year scholarship, funded by the VSL, called the

Victorian School of Languages PhD scholarship in memory of Professor Michael Clyne.9 The

expectation of this award was a PhD thesis that could be converted into a book, to be

published to commemorate the VSL’s 80th anniversary in 2015. I was thrilled to be the

chosen candidate, because I knew that this project was a special one and it represented a rare

opportunity. I came to this project as an experienced secondary school teacher of both

Japanese and history, and this PhD study enabled me to pursue research in three areas of my

own expertise and interest; languages, education and history.

The VSL gave its full support for this work, and gave full access to materials, documents and

personnel for the purpose of this study. Indeed, the VSL community supported this research

project strongly. But because the project was undertaken as a PhD study and not as a

6 M Clyne, Community Languages: The Australian Experience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Melbourne, 1991, p. 13. 7 Mascitelli and Merlino 2011, p. 42. 8 U Ozolins, The Politics of Language in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Melbourne, 1993, p. 30. 9 Professor Clyne passed away in October 2011.


5

commissioned history, I was given the liberty to be an independent scholar and to adopt a

critical stance where appropriate.

The original title of the research project was “The history, legacy and the future potential of

the Victorian School of Languages.” As long as the final thesis addressed the broad objective

of this original project title, I had the freedom to determine the most appropriate focus for the

research project and to decide on the most suitable method of approaching it. Early in my

candidature, I was struck by the enormity of the task. The VSL teaches 49 languages in 40

centres in Victoria and has an eighty-year history. How on earth should I approach such a

mammoth topic within the limits of a PhD? Yet I soon became convinced that my focus for

this project should be firmly anchored in the discipline of history. There were several reasons

for this. At the Public Records Office of Victoria (PROV), I discovered a box of archived

education department materials that document the first decades of the school’s history. These

are contained in the Education Department Special Case File 1315, which dates from 1935 to

1971. Previous scholars had barely touched these materials for this purpose, and I decided

that I was bound to make use of use them for this project, as these kinds of primary sources

represent a veritable goldmine of original material for scholars of history.

Secondly, I realised that some of the early students or staff of the school may still be alive

and be available to provide oral testimonies for this study. In this sense, I felt a clear sense of

responsibility to interview as many people from the early years as I could. I decided that the

study should be based on a historical narrative of the school, starting from the school’s

origins, and include the early decades of its history. I also knew that utilising an approach that

incorporated both historical methodology and theory would provide this project with the high

scholarly standard, broad scope and flexibility that was needed to satisfy its objectives.

While I did not know exactly what I would find, I approached this study as an exploration,

with the original primary sources acting as the driving force. I felt confident that rich themes

for analysis would emerge from this abundant primary source material. In fact, the issue of

the VSL’s search for legitimacy soon revealed itself as a strong theme throughout the

school’s history. The methodological approach that was used in this thesis will be explained

in more detail in Chapter 3 Research Methodology.


6

1.5 The research questions and the research methodology

Two open-ended, theoretical research questions were developed in order to provide this

research with a specific focus and an investigative tool. These research questions are:

1. How did the VSL and its language communities gain legitimacy within the education

system?10

2. How was the VSL shaped by “macro” and “micro” language policy and planning?11

It is important to state at the outset that this thesis will do more than just present a “school

history.” In fact, when considering the most suitable methodology to utilise to find answers to

the research questions stated above, this study endeavoured to avoid the many pitfalls and

risks associated with the genre of school history writing. Historians have criticised school

histories as a genre, because they have a tendency to be hagiographic enterprises that adopt a

narrow view, and they often ignore the broader social and political contexts in which schools

evolve.12 To avoid this trap, this study incorporates the broader influences of this country’s

changing approaches to language teaching and multilingualism throughout the twentieth

century. Indeed, these shifting contexts have been a critical and integral element of the VSL’s

history. For these reasons, this thesis is both a story and a study. As the historian Butterfield

explains, “Where history is both a story and a study, one may gain a profounder insight into

both the ways of men and the processes of time.”13

This thesis therefore uses a combination of approaches, to document, analyse and interpret

the VSL’s journey as an organisation. The methodology of historical inquiry was first used to

develop a chronological narrative that was organised with several key principles in mind.

Historical inquiry is an inductive approach that involves several stages of criticism, synthesis

and interpretation.14 Through the process of historical inquiry and analysis, the journey

10 B Clark, ‘The Organizational Saga in Higher Education’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 2, June 1972, pp. 178-184. | A Mercurio & A Scarino, ‘Heritage Languages at Upper Secondary Level in South Australia: A Struggle for Legitimacy’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 8, Number 2-3, 2005, pp. 145-159. | J Meyer and B Rowan, ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’, in American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, no. 2, Sep. 1977, pp. 340-363. 11 G Leitner, Australia's many voices: ethnic Englishes, indigenous and migrant languages: policy and education, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 2004, p. 263. 12 R Selleck, ‘Foreword’, in M Theobald, Ruyton Remembers 1878-1978, The Hawthorn Press, Melbourne, 1978. 13 Butterfield quoted in Bailyn, 1982, p. 7. 14 J McMillan and S Schumacher, ‘Concept Analysis and Historical Research’, in J McMillan and S Schumacher, Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction, 5th ed, Longman, New York, 2001, pp. 498-524.


7

towards legitimacy strongly emerged as a central theme of the VSL’s history. It became clear

that several struggles for legitimacy took place right throughout the VSL’s history. These can

be seen as a struggle for the school itself and also for the language communities and

curriculum areas that the school sought to represent. Several key theories that had the

capacity to explain and analyse the processes involved in the gaining and maintaining of

legitimacy were then selected and utilised. These came from a range of disciplines, including

education, sociology and applied linguistics. The historical narrative then was treated as an

artefact, and it was interrogated and analysed, using these theories as lenses to further

illuminate the issues surrounding legitimacy.

This thesis draws on a wide variety of primary and secondary source material. A large

proportion of the primary sources used was the archived education department documents

kept in the Education Department Special Case File 1315 at the PROV. Many other archived

documents were found at the VSL itself, and interview participants donated a small number

of documents. Further primary source material was found at the State Library of Victoria, and

this included materials such as newspaper articles, records of parliamentary debates, and

ministerial reports. In addition, thirty-seven in-depth interviews were held with a broad cross

section of people, such as ex-principals, centre managers, classroom teachers and alumni, as

well as external stakeholders with connections to the languages education field. This broad

approach ensured that many viewpoints were heard and it provided opportunities for a

diversity of stories to be gathered.

1.6 Outline of thesis chapters

This thesis presents both a historical narrative as well as a theoretical analysis of the history

of the VSL, and it is set out in nine chapters. Each chapter has its own specific purpose and

they are set out in the following way:

Chapter 2, “Literature Review”, presents a review of the existing literature that informs the

multifaceted subject areas of language teaching and language education in this country. This

vast literature encompasses many disciplines, such as linguistics, applied linguistics, history,

and educational history. In many cases, these bodies of literature contain ongoing debates and


8

arguments. This chapter articulates the way that this thesis will contribute towards and extend

the existing discourses about several of these particular debates.

Chapter 3, “Methodology”, provides a detailed outline of the methodological approaches that

were chosen for this thesis. It describes the data collection process and the history method. It

also provides a detailed discussion of the theories that were chosen to interrogate the data and

the reasons for their particular selection.

Chapter 4, is titled “Beginnings: Special classes in languages 1935-1965”. This is the first of

three chapters to present a historical narrative of the history of the school. This chapter begins

with a brief historical overview of the development of language education in Victoria prior to

1935. It then presents a chronological narrative, starting with the school’s origins in 1935,

and ending in 1964. Towards the end of the chapter, there is a section that presents a

theoretical interpretation of the issues surrounding the school’s quest for legitimacy during

this period.

Chapter 5 is called “Growth and the journey towards recognition 1965-1987”. This chapter

presents a narrative over a twenty-two year period, which was a period of intense growth for

the school. This period coincided with broader ideological change in the state of Victoria,

which saw a dramatic shift towards an acceptance of multiculturalism and multilingualism.

Towards the end of the chapter, there is a theoretical section that provides an interpretation of

the issues surrounding the school’s journey towards legitimacy throughout this part of its

history.

Chapter 6 is titled “The Victorian School of Languages 1988-1994”. This is the third and

final chapter to trace the VSL’s history. During this period, the VSL was officially recognised

as a government secondary school. Its structure was revised and this resulted in the VSL

achieving a greater level of professionalism, status and standing within the educational

community in Victoria. Again, the chapter concludes with a section that provides a

theoretical interpretation of the issues of legitimacy that are described in the narrative.

Chapter 7 is called “Discussion: Issues in gaining and maintaining legitimacy, answers to

research questions, and contribution to knowledge”. This chapter moves away from the

historical narrative and adopts a thematic approach. It uses the same theoretical lenses to


9

analyse the many challenges that the VSL and its language communities faced in maintaining

the status and legitimacy that they gained in the education system. In addition, it uses theory

to consider the impact that the legitimated VSL had on the other providers of language

education in Victoria. This chapter then provides answers to the research questions through a

discussion of the major findings of this thesis. It then articulates the ways that this thesis has

contributed to knowledge.

Finally, Chapter 8 is the Conclusion to the thesis. It gives a final estimation of the way that

this historical analysis of the VSL’s history has contributed to the literatures that inform this

complex and multidisciplinary subject area. It also notes the limitations of this study and

makes several suggestions for future research directions.

1.7 A clarification of key definitions and terminology

This thesis uses the word “languages” rather than other labels such as LOTE (languages other

than English), foreign languages or modern languages. This is because each of these terms is

rooted in its own period of history and brings its own set of political connotations. At times,

this study also refers to “community languages” and this term is not unproblematic either.

These complexities will be explored in greater depth in Chapter 2 Literature Review. This

thesis also refers to students who bring a level of background knowledge to their language

studies as “background” learners, rather than other labels such as native speaker, or first

language speaker. “Background” learner is not uncomplicated however, as it is rather vague.

These issues are also discussed in more depth in Chapter 2 Literature Review.

This thesis also refers to a number of key terms that relate to schooling in Victoria. It refers to

regular Monday to Friday schools, or day schools that deliver the entire curriculum, as

“mainstream schools”. This contrasts with out of hours schools that specialise in language

programs, which are termed “complementary” schools or providers. This study also refers to

schools that are run and operated by the state of Victoria as “state schools” or “government

schools”. Those that are privately run are called “independent” or “non-government” schools.

The independent, community run language schools that operate on an out of hours basis were

once called “Ethnic Schools” but are now called “Community Language Schools”. This study

uses both names, depending on the historical context that is being referred to.


10

This study also refers to the final year of secondary school as Year 12, as it is known in

Victoria. This differs from some other Australian states or territories, which refer to the final

year of secondary school as Form 6. Students in their final year sit for the Victorian

Certificate of Education (VCE), which was previously called the High School Certificate

(HSC), as it is known in several Australian states and territories. This thesis makes reference

to both the VCE and the HSC in Victoria, depending on the particular historical context that

is being discussed.

1.8 A note about footnotes

This thesis makes use of footnotes instead of in text references. This is because Chapters 5, 6

and 7, which draw heavily on archived primary source documents, include many detailed and

long references to their provenance. It would not be possible to include sufficiently detailed

in text references for these types of sources because they would be too lengthy. Therefore for

purposes of consistency, footnotes in the Oxford style have been used throughout the entire

thesis.

Chapter 2. Literature Review

11


2.1 Introduction

The purpose of this thesis is to use historical analysis to investigate the VSL’s journey

towards legitimacy as an officially recognised state specialist language school. In doing so, it

will also extend the discourse about languages education in Australia, using the case of the

VSL as a specific example. New light will be thrown on the current body of knowledge about

languages education. In particular, it will identify the literature gap around the bid by the

VSL to seek legitimacy for its survival and its role to provide complementary language

programs.

The purpose of this chapter is to review the main bodies of literature that inform this

multifaceted subject area. The literatures that are presented in this chapter are organised into

three sections. The first section starts by briefly reviewing the literature that is concerned

with the broad area of languages. It provides some important definitions for languages and

language speakers. It then introduces the academic discipline of language planning, which is

situated in the field of applied linguistics. It then outlines the debate around the tension that

exists between “macro” and “micro” language policy and planning, and how this relates to

the VSL.

The second section focuses specifically on Australia. It briefly explains languages in the

Australian context and then outlines some of the main language policy documents that have

been developed in this country and in Victoria. This section also briefly examines the

literature about multiculturalism and its influence on languages in this country.

The third part of this chapter then narrows down to concentrate specifically on languages

education in Australian schools. It describes the current situation in relation to languages

education in schools, including several problems. Finally, it outlines the different school

sectors that provide languages education, before pinpointing its focus specifically on the VSL.

This last section will reveal the extent to which scholars have ignored the VSL in the


12

literature. It will become clear that the VSL is entirely under-represented and largely absent

from the “grand narrative” of the history of education in this country.

In addition, this section will also show the absence of theoretical analyses about the VSL’s

journey towards legitimacy. It will demonstrate that the VSL, and indeed none of Australia’s

other state specialist language schools, have been examined in terms of their journey to

acquire legitimacy as accepted organisations in the education system. The fact that theories

about organisational legitimacy have not yet been used as a lens to analyse the VSL or any

other state specialist language schools reveals not only an empirical gap but also a theoretical

gap in the literature.

Section 1: Languages

2.1.1 A definition for languages

It is important to begin by providing some definitions of key terms that will be used in this

thesis. This thesis uses the currently accepted term “languages” to denote this area of the

school curriculum. However the history of languages education in Australia has been

characterised by many shifts in the ways that languages have been defined and labelled. The

VSL has grown and developed throughout these ever-changing contexts.

These include ‘classical’, ‘modern’, ‘foreign’, ‘migrant’, ‘ethnic’, ‘community’, ‘languages other than English’, ‘languages’, ‘Asian’ or ‘European’, and ‘geopolitical’. There have also been significant shifts in the labels used to identify those languages that are indigenous to Australia, from ‘Aboriginal’ to ‘Australian Indigenous Languages’, and more recently to ‘Australian Languages’.1

These labels have served particular purposes in different contexts. They have acted as tools of

reference and have indicated whether certain languages should be included or excluded. As

policies have shifted over time, so have the labels, reflecting the dominant beliefs about

language education.2

1 Mercurio and Scarino 2005, p. 146. 2 Ibid.


13

From the mid-1970s in Australia, the term “community languages” was used to denote

languages spoken among migrant communities.3 For a time, it was considered ideal because

it replaced terms such as “foreign languages”, “migrant languages” and “ethnic languages”

which were deemed discriminatory and inadequate. In addition, it legitimised the continuing

existence of all languages in Australia.4 However, writers have challenged this term, arguing

that it is too broad and can be unclear which particular community is being referred to. In the

North American context, the label “heritage languages” is accepted.5 Linguists recognise that

both the terms “heritage languages” and “community languages” have their limitations.6

In educational settings, the term “Languages Other Than English” (LOTE) was used in

Australia for many years. However in a Commonwealth government statement on languages

education that was issued for the period 2005– 2008, the term “LOTE” was replaced with the

simple term “languages.”7 This change was again articulated in a report in 2008,8 and was

confirmed in Victoria in 2012, when the Victorian Department of Education and Early

Childhood officially announced the change in nomenclature.9 Replacing “LOTE” with

“languages” eliminates the emphasis on English as the dominant language. The term

“languages” enables languages to stand alone in their own right; they no longer need to be

qualified by their relationship to English.

However a 2011 survey that asked VSL staff which terms they believe best defines non-

English languages revealed a broad range of views. By far, the majority of respondents

indicated that they believed the term “Languages Other Than English (LOTE)” (68.4 per

3 S Kipp, M Clyne & A Pauwels, Immigration and Australia's language resources, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1995, p. 2, Mercurio and Scarino 2005, p. 146. 4 Clyne 1991, p. 3. 5 Mercurio and Scarino 2005, p. 146. 6 NH Hornberger, ‘Heritage/Community Language Education: US and Australian Perspectives’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 8, no. 2-3, 2005, pp. 101-108, p. 102. 7 AJ Liddicoat, A Scarino, T Jowan Curnow, M Kohler, A Scrimgeour, & A-M Morgan, An Investigation of the State and Nature of Languages in Australian Schools: Prepared by the Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education University of South Australia, Dept. of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra, A.C.T., 2007, p. 3. Retrieved 19 July 2012, http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/82B80761-70BD-47A6-A85A-17F250E11CBA/22998/SNfinalreport3.pdf 8 Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training, and Youth Affairs, Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training, and Youth Affairs, Melbourne, 2008. 9 D Guest, Title of memo: S086-2012 Change of Nomenclature from LOTE to Languages and ESL to English as an Additional Language (EAL), Department of Education and early Childhood Development, Victoria, memo dated 6 March 2012.


14

cent) still defined the curriculum area the best.10 This confusion can be seen as a symptom of

the long-standing debate in Australia about the appropriate label to use for non-English

languages as a curriculum area. While these frequent changes have enabled the languages

area to be updated and brought into line with current ideologies, it has also brought

misunderstanding.

2.1.2 A definition for speakers of languages

It is also important to provide a definition for the people that speak languages in this country.

Australia, which has a population identified by more than 270 separate ancestries, has been

home to many different ethnic communities, especially since the end of the Second World

War. Within Australia, Victoria has the greatest ethnic diversity and according to the latest

Census (2011) the State with the largest number of people born abroad and using second

languages at home.11 The 2011 Australian Census of Population and Housing found that 23

per cent of Victorians speak a language other than English at home.12

Deciding on an appropriate label for speakers of languages might seem straightforward, but it

is not. Researchers use many labels such as native and non-native speaker, first language (L1),

second language (L2) or foreign language (FL).13 In the US context, “heritage” is commonly

used to denote someone with an existing knowledge of a language.14 In Australia, the label

“background” is commonly used.

The question of what to do about this group of learners in the education system has long been

considered one of the most contentious and debated issues in language education.15 While it

is tempting to group speakers into two clear categories of “background” and “non-

background”, the reality is far more complex. The term “background” is problematic because 10 H Avara, & B Mascitelli, ‘Languages in Australia – Future and Survival in a Mono-lingual Context: A Survey of the Victorian School of Languages (VSL)’, conference paper, 2011. 11 Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Australian Census of Population and Housing 2011’, 2013. Retrieved 30 May 2013, http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data?opendocument#from-banner=LN 12 Diversity Health Institute, Demographic Data, NSW Government, 2012. Retrieved 10 September 2013, http://www.dhi.health.nsw.gov.au/DHI-Home/Demographic-Data/default.aspx. 13 C Elder, ‘Outing the Native Speaker: The Problem of Diverse Learner Backgrounds in ‘Foreign’ Language Classrooms - An Australian Case Study’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, vol. 13, no. 1, 2000, pp. 86-108, p. 86. 14 J Lo Bianco, Y Slaughter, & Australian Council for Educational Research, Second languages and Australian schooling, ACER, Camberwell, Victoria, 2009, p. 51. 15 Ibid, p. 51.


15

it encompasses a broad range of skills in a language. Clyne developed a taxonomy which

divided language exposure into 12 levels and ranged from speakers with an active home

background and substantial exposure to that language in a formal education setting overseas,

right through to someone with no prior knowledge of the language but an interest in it due to

family origins.16 While acknowledging that the term is rather vague, this thesis will refer to

these students as “background” learners.

2.1.3 Language policy and planning

In order to evaluate the VSL’s role in Victoria, it is important to consider the academic

discipline of language policy and planning, which underpins the literature about language

programs and their place in education systems. The two terms “language policy” and

“language planning” are often used interchangeably, but they are in fact quite distinct from

one another. “Language policy” is defined as: “a body of ideas, laws, regulations, rules and

practices intended to achieve the planned language change in the society, group or system.”17

Scholars accept that language policy can encompass both explicit, authoritative documents as

well as the discourse, such as the debates and discussions that surround the decisions that are

made about languages.18 Another crucial element is the way in which a policy is interpreted,

debated and enacted. 19 Language planning is defined as “systematic, theory-based, rational,

and organized societal attention to language problems”.20 This broader conceptualization

encompasses key activities such as foreign language planning as well as language in

education planning.21 Hornberger agrees that language policy and language planning are

inextricably related but states that the relationship is ambiguous. For this reason, Language

Policy and Planning (LPP) offers a useful “conceptual rubric”.22

16 Clyne 2005, p. 128-129. 17 RB Kaplan, ‘Macro Language Planning’, in E Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, vol. 2, Routledge, New York, NY, 2011, pp. 924-935, p. 925. 18 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 17. 19 J Lo Bianco & R Aliani, Language Planning and Student Experiences: Intention, Rhetoric and Implementation, e-book, 2013, p. 2. Retrieved 08 April 2014, <http://SWIN.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1317850>. 20 R Cooper, Language Planning and Social Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989, p. 31. 21 M Fettes, ‘Language planning and education’, in R Wodak & D Corson (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Language Policy and Political Issues in Education, vol. 1, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1997, pp. 13-22, p. 14. 22 N Hornberger, ‘Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning’, in T Ricento (ed.), Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, Blackwell Pub., Malden, MA, 2006, pp. 24-41, p. 25.


16

While linguists may propose a model to explain a particular phenomenon, there is no

overarching theory in the field of language policy and planning. This is due to “the

complexity of the issues which involve language in society.”23 Furthermore, the term

“domain of enquiry” may be a more useful term than “theory of language policy and

planning”. This is because scholars tend to research particular issues or problems, rather than

using data to prove a certain theory.24

Language planning as an activity has existed for a long time; as scholars point out, it is

“probably as old as recorded human history as it is a part of how people use language”.25

Approximately fifty years ago, this field became an official discipline, when sociolinguists

pioneered the development of language planning as a largely orthographic discipline.26 It was

considered a way of solving language related “problems” in developing countries. 27

Language planners developed two types of interventions; “corpus planning”, which was the

definition and development of a national standard, and “status planning”, which was the

encouragement of the use of that language.28 But because language planning was preoccupied

with one policy, one language, and one culture, monolingual ideas pervaded the field and

many of these early interventions failed.29 In many developing countries, minority languages

were treated as a problem rather than a resource, and this had disastrous consequences for the

education of those languages.30 Indeed in Australia, this ideology that English was the

dominant language prevailed for many decades and this influenced language policy in this

country. Language policy in Australia will be explored in further detail later in this chapter in

section 2.2.3 Official national language policy documents in Australia.

23 T Ricento, ‘Language policy: Theory and Practice - An Introduction’, in T Ricento (ed.), Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, Blackwell Pub., Malden, MA, 2006, pp. 10-23, p. 10. 24 Ibid, p. 12. 25 R Kaplan, R Baldauf & EBSCOhost, Language Planning from Practice to Theory, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, [Eng.]; Philadelphia, 1997, p. ix. 26 J Nekvapil, ‘The History and Theory of Language Planning’, in E Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, vol. 2, Routledge, New York, NY, 2011, pp. 871-887, p. 871. Fettes 1997 p. 13. 27 Kaplan 2011, p. 924-925. 28 Fettes 1997, p. 13. 29 Kaplan 2011, p. 926-927. 30 Fettes 1997, p. 17.


17

2.1.4 Language-in-education planning

“Language in education planning”, also called “acquisition planning”, which is a third type of

intervention in language planning, is relevant to this study. Linguists added this new category

in the 1980s in order to address efforts to increase the number of users of a certain

language.31 It is defined as: “the ideals, goals, and content of language policy that can be

realized, to the extent they are relevant, within the educational system.”32 This type of

planning affects languages taught in education systems and scholars suggest that it represents

the “public face” of language planning. It is therefore “often seen as the most potent resource

for bringing about language change.”33 These ideas are relevant to this thesis because the

VSL and its language programs can be understood within the context of language in

education planning.

Language in education policy and planning involves a series of steps. These include

curriculum, personnel, materials, community, and evaluation.34 Scholars now recognize that

social processes such as migration are also important, and it is because of migration that

many people worldwide are learning languages. There is now therefore, a greater focus on

language in education planning, and many countries use it as a way to manage the movement

of people.35 However, in order to achieve success, scholars recommend that these planning

activities take place in conjunction with a society’s broader language plans. Often, the

education sector is given unrealistic expectations to achieve a society’s broad ranging

language goals independently.36 Indeed, this point is relevant to the Australian case, where

government has set ambitious language learning targets. These ideas will be explored later in

this thesis.

Significantly for this thesis, it has been suggested that language in education planning has

only had an impact on the formal education structure and not on complementary providers

(such as the VSL), which are considered informal:

31 Cooper 1989. 32 D Ingram, ‘Language-in-Education Planning’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 10, 1989, pp 53-78, p. 53. 33 Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, p. 122. 34 Ibid, p. 142. 35 Kaplan 2011, p. 926. 36 Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, p. 142.


18

[I]t [language in education planning] has not necessarily penetrated educational activities in other areas (e.g. the military, tourism, banking and economics), nor has it had much impact on informal educational structures (e.g. apprenticeship systems of various sorts, out of school teaching in church or community related schools [‘Saturday schools’]37

These comments raise questions about what kind of language planning (if any) can account

for the language education that takes place in complementary providers, such as the VSL.

They also highlight the dearth of scholarly knowledge about complementary language

provision and its relationship to language policy.

2.1.5 Micro, grassroots and bottom up language planning

Traditionally, scholarly work on language policy and planning focused on the “macro” level;

that is on government initiated, top-down initiatives.38 Here, the “actors” in language

planning and policy are usually government officials. There is a great deal of literature about

these policies and their implications in the Australian context. They will be outlined in 2.2.3

Official national language policy documents in Australia.

More recently, however, scholars have written about language policy and planning in local

contexts. This notion asserts that language policy and planning occurs on macro, meso and

micro levels.39 In micro level language planning, the communities themselves are “active

agents and advocates for the maintenance of their cultural and linguistic heritage, rather than

passive recipients of government support”.40 It is also called “grassroots” and “bottom-up”

language planning.41 Language planning enacted by local communities is vital as it fills the

gaps that official language policies do not reach.42 Scholars note that meso level language

planning also exists and that it is often enacted in local contexts for a range of purposes.43

37 Ibid, p. 123. 38 R Baldauf, ‘Rearticulating the Case for Micro Language Planning in a Language Ecology Context’, Current Issues in Language Planning, vol. 7, no. 2-3, 2006, pp. 147-170, p. 147. 39 Baldauf 2006, p. 147. 40 A Hatoss, ‘Community-Level Approaches in Language Planning: The Case of Hungarian in Australia’, Current Issues in Language Planning, vol. 7, no. 2-3, 2006, pp. 287-306, p. 287. 41 N Hornberger (ed.), Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom up, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1997, p. 11. 42 Hatoss 2006, p. 288. 43 Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, p. 61.


19

Linguists also consider macro level language planning that fails to accommodate all groups

of people unplanned or misplanned language planning.44

This tension between top down “macro” language policy and bottom up, community driven

“micro” language policy is an important debate that that this thesis will seek to address.

Leitner is the only linguist who described the VSL in these terms: “a grass-roots initiative

that was absorbed by a top-down policy”.45 Curiously, however, he did not develop this idea

in detail or explain how or why this “absorbing” may have come about. This is an important

area that warrants further investigation. This represents a key area in the literature that ought

to be resolved. Addressing this gap is a unique opportunity to use a “real life” example of

micro and macro language policy and planning in action, and to analyse the way they relate

to each other in a complementary language provision setting.

Section 2. Languages in Australia

2.2.1 The Australian context

It is important to begin this section by making several points about the Australian context.

Australia is an immigrant nation. Its population is identified by more than 270 separate

ancestries, and is home to many different ethnic communities, especially since the end of the

Second World War. Within Australia, Victoria is the State with the greatest presence of

ethnic diversity and according to the latest Census (2011) the State with the largest number of

people born abroad and using second languages at home.46 The 2011 Australian Census

found that 23 per cent of Victorians speak a language other than English at home.47 In 2011,

the ten most commonly spoken languages were Italian, Greek, Mandarin, Vietnamese,

Cantonese, Arabic, Turkish, Hindi, Punjabi and Macedonian.48

44 RBJ Baldouf, ‘Unplanned Language Policy and Planning’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 14, 1993/1994, pp. 82-89, p. 83. 45 Leitner 2004, p. 263. 46 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013. 47 Diversity Health Institute, 2012. 48 Victoria. Office of Premier and Cabinet and Office of Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, Victoria's diverse population: 2011 census, 2013, p. 5. Retrieved 10 September 2013, http://www.multicultural.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/2013/pop_diversity_vic_brochure_2013_web.pdf


20

While Australia is an immigrant nation, and it might seem similar to other immigrant nations

such as New Zealand, Canada, the US and the UK, linguists point out that there are several

points that distinguish Australia from these other countries. New Zealand is distinct from

Australia because it officially recognised the Māori language, te reo Māori in its courts and

parliament with the passing of the Māori Language Act of 1987.49 Canada has two official

languages, English and French.50 While Australia may seem similar to the US, insofar as it

has indigenous languages as well as immigrant ones, it is different because of the status of

Spanish in the US, which has dominated the non-English language arena. This is because of

the large number of Spanish speakers and the political relationship that the US has with

Puerto Rico and Mexico.51 Furthermore, Australia has no “English only” lobby groups. These

exist in the US and Canada and they actively campaign against multilingualism. In some US

states, they have been successful and English has been made the official language.52

2.2.2 Language policy in Australia

Linguists such as Clyne, Ozolins and Lo Bianco have identified and described the key phases

and periods in Australia’s history that relate to policies on language and multilingualism.53

Moreover, they have explained how languages other than English have been affected by these

policies. As stated above, “language policy” means both the explicit, official type as well as

the implicit understandings about languages, such as the discourse, debates and discussions

that surround the decisions that are made.54 It was not until the 1960s that explicit language

policy documents were developed in Australia. Prior to that time, the country’s policies on

languages were “ad hoc” and unofficial.55 The broad changes that occurred in Australia’s

history that influenced attitudes towards languages will be described in detail in Chapter 4

Thematic background to language education in Victoria.

49 R Barnard & T Glynn (eds), Bilingual children's language and literacy development, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, Eng. Buffalo, N.Y., 2003, p. 13-14. 50 B Burnaby, ‘Language policies in Canada’ in M Herriman & B Burnaby (eds), Language Policies in English Dominant Countries, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 1996, pp. 159-219. 51 S Romaine, Language in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 1991, p. 12. 52 Ibid, p. 14. 53 Clyne 1991, Ozolins 1993, J Lo Bianco, A Site for Debate, Negotiation and Contest of National Identity: Language Policy in Australia, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2003. 54 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 17. 55 Romaine 1991, p. 8.


21

In the 40 years from 1970, it is estimated that there have been at least 67 policy related

reports about language education in Australia.56 They have tended to be short term in their

perspective and often replaced one another.57 It would not be possible to explain them all here,

but the main official policy documents will be outlined below. Prior to 1987, it was only state

and territory governments who developed language in education policies in Australia. From

the 1980s onwards, it was the Commonwealth government that became the “main driver” for

language in education policies, with efforts at the state level largely focused on the

implementation of federal policy moves.58 Support for language programs has ebbed and

flowed in accordance with changing priorities and responsibilities, but “Federal authorities

[have] gradually encroached upon former State responsibilities”.59

Language in education policies in this country have tended to be ambiguous and have not

made a distinction between the teaching of foreign languages and the teaching of immigrant

languages. Indeed, some languages that are taught as foreign languages in fact overlap, as in

some cases they are also immigrant languages. The processes articulated in the policy

documents tend to focus on that of foreign language learning even though they may also

encompass first language learning.60

This is a useful point for this study. Also, this study has deliberately not made a distinction

between languages education for different purposes. This is because over the years, the VSL

has been concerned with the teaching of all types of languages to all types of learners. While

it may have focused on different types of language learning at different times in its history,

these different priorities have ebbed and flowed and, indeed, overlapped. Overall, the school

has not articulated an explicit distinction between language learning for certain purposes and

language learning in general. Its role has encompassed all goals for language learning.

56 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 6. 57 A Liddicoat, Language-in-education policies: the discursive construction of intercultural relations, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2013, p. 32. 58 Ibid. 59 JJ Smolicz & MJ Secombe, ‘Assimilation or pluralism? Changing policies for minority languages education in Australia’, Language Policy, vol. 2, no. 1, 2003, pp. 3-25, p. 10. 60 Liddicoat 2013, p. 33.


22

2.2.3 Official national language policy documents in Australia

This section will outline the major language policy documents that have been initiated in

Australia. As stated earlier, these can be seen as “macro” level, top-down initiatives. The

reason for presenting these policies in this chapter is to illustrate this country’s official

approach to languages over the decades. It was these policies that influenced languages-in-

education programs for Australian children. Yet the initiatives that are outlined below were

largely intended for mainstream, “day” school systems, rather than for complementary

providers such as the VSL. To what extent they had an impact on the VSL is undocumented.

It is important to explain these developments because it was against the backdrop of these

policies that the VSL grew and evolved over the decades.

In Victoria, in 1985, the State Board of Education, together with the Ministerial Advisory

Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education (MACMME), produced a discussion

paper called “The Place of Community Languages in Victorian Schools”. It was the first

Victorian policy statement about languages. Furthermore, it was “probably the most thorough

language education policy up to this time in Australia”.61 It provided in depth rationalisation

for language programs for community language maintenance and also for languages for all

children.

A national policy on languages was first suggested in the mid 1970s.62 The first Australian

National Policy on Languages (NPL) was released in May 1987, but it was in 1981 when the

Federal Education Department initiated a project to develop it. A Senate Committee Inquiry

received some 230 submissions on a wide range of language issues.63 The subsequent report

was released in December 1984.64 Despite very high expectations that the senate report would

result in a policy proposal, it was never acted upon. There was a period of intense lobbying

for two and a half years before Minister Susan Ryan employed the services of Joseph Lo

Bianco to help produce an implementation document.65 The report called ‘National Policy on

Languages’ was released in May 1987.66

61 Ozolins 1993, p. 183. 62 Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, Report on a national language policy, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1984, p. 1. 63 Ozolins 1993, p. 220. 64 Ibid, p. 243. 65 P Djite, From language policy to language planning: an overview of languages other than English in Australian education, The National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia, Deakin ACT, 1994, p. 18.


23

The NPL had four major goals: 1. English for all; 2. Support for Aboriginal languages; 3. A

language other than English for all; and 4. the widespread provision of language services in

appropriate languages.67 The NPL also advocated for a balanced approach that enabled

language teaching to cover multiple functions, such as community as well as trade

considerations. 68 For this reason, the NPL allowed traditionally taught classical and

geopolitical languages to co-exist with community languages.69 Controversially, the NPL

recommended that a group of nine languages of national importance should be the subject of

initiatives in the education system. These were Standard Chinese, Indonesian/Malay,

Japanese, French, German, Italian, Modern Greek, Arabic and Spanish.70 However, this list

was not drawn up in order to stifle the scope of language education.71

The NPL was considered a watershed report.72 Despite many changes in government policy

throughout the years, the policies of the NPL have been resilient. They have also been the

subject of envy from overseas observers.73 Reflecting on language policies in the US, the

scholar Fishman, wrote, “We are a long, long way from a positive language policy, such as

the one the Australians have just adopted calling for an active second language… for every

Australian”.74 Similarly, the UK scholar Romaine also noted that “The movement to set up a

national language policy is so far unprecedented in the major Anglophone countries like

Britain and the US.”75

Liddicoat has noted that the NPL’s goal, “a language other than English for all” was

ambiguous and in fact masked the many linguistic realities found in Australian society.

Whether children with English speaking backgrounds were learning new languages or

whether children were learning their family’s language as maintenance, the NPL represented

a blurring of boundaries. Language education under the NPL became a unitary

66 J Lo Bianco, National Policy on Languages, Commonwealth Department of Education, Canberra, 1987. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid, p. 15. 69 Smolicz and Secombe 2003, p. 11. 70 Ozolins 1993, p. 245. 71 Lo Bianco 1987, p. 125. 72 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 22. 73 Ozolins 1993, p. 250. 74 J Fishman, “English only’: its ghosts, myths, and dangers’, International Journal Of The Sociology Of Language, vol. 74, November 1988, pp. 125-140, p. 137. 75 Romaine 1991, p. 8.


24

phenomenon.76 In doing this, the policy dealt with the needs of community language groups

without highlighting ethnic particularism.77 “Ethnic particularism is especially associated

with the idea that diversity destabilises society, by creating groups whose interests do not

coincide with national interests”78

Economists became involved in language education planning discussions for the first time in

1989. Education planning became a deliberate strategy to develop the nation’s skills in

building strong economic ties with our Asian neighbours.79 This shift towards economic and

training goals came about as a result of the recession and economic downturn in Australia in

the 1980s.80

It was in this context that 1991 saw the introduction of the Australian Language and Literacy

Policy (ALLP).81 It was also known as the Dawkins Report. Unlike the NPL, which balanced

social justice concerns with trade considerations, the ALLP was primarily geared towards

vocational goals as reasons for language learning.82 In fact Dawkins, the author of the ALLP,

was deeply antagonistic towards the NPL and believed it had gone too far.83 The ALLP was

preoccupied with English literacy education, and this was made clear at the press conference

launch of the policy, when Dawkins explained, “English language training, is… the most

important part of this policy document.” 84

The ALLP began a new phase of providing financial incentives for language learning.85 It

identified 14 languages as priority languages, from which each State could choose 8 for

special funding. The policy set the goal for 25 per cent of Year 12 students to be enrolled in

language study, and per capita funding was allocated on this basis.86 The identification of

these particular languages had a detrimental effect on other existing community language

76 Liddicoat 2013, p. 40. 77 Ibid, p. 34-35. 78 Ibid, p. 34. 79 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 21. 80 Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels 1995, p. 5. 81 Department of Employment, Education and Training & J Dawkins, Australia's language: the Australian language and literacy policy, Australian Govt. Pub. Service, Canberra, 1991. 82 Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels 1995, p. 6. 83 H Moore, ‘Telling the history of the 1991 Australian language and literacy policy’, TESOL in Context, vol. 5, no. 1, June 1995, pp. 6-20, p. 12. 84 Ibid, p. 13. 85 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 23. 86 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 15.


25

programs in mainstream schools, such as Macedonian, Turkish and Maltese.87 The ALLP was

ambiguous in which goals it was setting for language learning, but it downplayed the focus

on language maintenance and instead concentrated on the “new” learning of languages.88 In

fact many linguists criticised the ALLP for the way it sought to unravel the work of the

NPL.89

In the early 1990s, there were policies introduced on the State level as well. It was at this time

when there was a significant expansion of LOTE provision in Victorian state primary schools.

This was due to the government implementation of a policy called The LOTE Strategy. This

policy required all primary schools to initiate a LOTE program, and it was recommended that

all students between Prep and Year 10 engage in language study. As an incentive, each

school that introduced a language into the curriculum was offered financial aid. The resulting

introduction of LOTE programs was dramatic. Where only around 5 per cent of schools

offered a LOTE program in the early 1980s, 90.3 per cent of schools taught LOTE by 2003.90

In February 1994, the National Asian Languages and Cultures Working Group released a

policy report to introduce The National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools

(NALSAS). Asian Languages and Australia’s Economic Future was endorsed by Prime

Minister Keating and the States, and funding was allocated for its programs. 91 It was not

designed to replace the ALLP; rather it was intended to function alongside it.92 The NALSAS

programs included nationally co-ordinated strategies which aimed for greater number of

student enrolments in the four Asian languages that were deemed to be of priority; Chinese,

Indonesian, Japanese and Korean.93

87 M Clyne & S Fernandez, ‘Community language learning in Australia’, in Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd edition, volume 4: Second and foreign language education), Springer Science + Business Media LLC., 2008, pp.169–181, p. 174. 88 Liddicoat 2013, p. 42. 89 See Clyne 1991, L Papademetre & S Routoulas, ‘Social, Political, Educational, Linguistic and Cultural (Dis-) Incentives for Languages Education in Australia’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 22, no. 2, 2001, pp. 134-151, p. 149. 90 Y Slaughter & J Hajek, ‘Community languages and LOTE provision in Victorian primary schools: mix or match?’ Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 30, no. 1, 2007, pp. 07.1 – 07.22, p. 07.2. 91 COAG & Working Group on Asian Languages and Culture, Asian languages and Australia's economic future: a report prepared for the Council of Australian Governments on a proposed national Asian languages/studies strategy for Australian schools, Queensland Government Printer, Brisbane, 1994. 92 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 15. 93 Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels 1995, p. 7.


26

In highlighting these four languages, the associated cultures of Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese

and Korean were given a boost, but it was at the cost of other languages such as German and

Greek, which were well established. Furthermore, the emphasis on the four Asian languages

ignored the presence of local Asian community languages such as Vietnamese and Filipino.94

Even in the case of Chinese, which represented a sizeable existing community, language

maintenance was not mentioned. The multicultural element that had featured in previous

language policy documents was completely lacking.95

In fact the policy excluded those with existing knowledge of those languages and instead

focused entirely on language education provision for English background speaking

monolinguals.96 Like ALLP, NALSAS received criticism for its clear shift away from

community language education and towards a focus on “foreign” language learning. Again, it

aimed to educate Australian children for practical and economic means. This policy provided

financial incentives for schools teaching the four Asian languages that were deemed to be of

particular economic significance to Australia; Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Indonesian.

The policy achieved mixed success, with the number of students enrolled in the languages

increasing. In the case of Japanese, the numbers surpassed French, but the numbers studying

Korean remained very small.97

After NALSAS came the National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools:

National Plan for Languages Education in Australian Schools 2005-2008, referred to here as

The National Statement and Plan for Languages.98 This policy was issued collaboratively by

all Australian Ministers of Education. Because of this collaborative approach, it was rather

generalised in that all stakeholders had to agree to its statements.99 Its language was inclusive

and stated that all languages were valuable.100 However, it echoed the preoccupations of its

predecessors in that it too advocated for language education as a means for economic benefit:

94 M Clyne, & S Kipp, ‘Australia's community languages’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 180, issue 1, 2006, pp. 7–21, p. 10. 95 Liddicoat 2013, p. 43. 96 Ibid, p. 44. 97 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 23. 98 Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools: National Plan for Languages Education in Australian Schools 2005-2008 Adelaide, Department of Education and Children’s Services, 2005. 99 Liddicoat 2013, p. 44. 100 Lo Bianco and Aliani 2013, p. 15.


27

“The underlying educational ideology is that the purpose of education is a utilitarian one of

developing resources to be deployed in the national interest.”101

In 2009 the federal government introduced the National Asian Languages and Studies in

Schools Program (NALSSP). NALSSP was effectively a reintroduction of NALSAS in a

revised form.102 Like NALSAS, it also targeted the same four Asian languages through

federal funding, in this case to the order of $62.4 million over 2008–09 to 2010–11. NALSSP

had a target attached to it: “by 2020, at least 12 per cent of students will exit Year 12 with a

fluency in one of the target languages”.103 These targets were widely considered to be

unrealistic given the reality of language programs in schools, and inconsistencies between the

NALSSP’s aims and its outcomes in fact served to weaken it.104

The most recent policy advance is the Australian Curriculum. It is being developed by the

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), which was

established by the commonwealth government in 2009. In the Australian Curriculum,

languages have been declared a priority area, and the Australian Curriculum is considered a

radical departure from the way in which states and territories in Australian have previously

approached curriculum development.105 The Australian Curriculum does not specify how

schools and teachers must deliver content. They are given the flexibility to make decisions

about how they teach the curriculum in accordance with the needs of their students, the

standards and priorities of their school and the requirements of local curriculum authorities.

Language-specific curricula have been developed for Arabic, Chinese, French, German,

Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Modern Greek, Spanish and Vietnamese. Curriculum

documents for additional languages such as Auslan, Classical languages, Hindi and Turkish

are also being developed.106

Educational authorities in Victoria have also been working on ways to improve language

education in this state. In 2011, the Victorian government released its vision document for

101 Liddicoat 2013, p. 46. 102 Ibid, p. 47. 103 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 24. 104 Lo Bianco and Aliani 2013, p. 16-17. 105 Lo Bianco and Aliani 2013, p. 18. 106 ACARA, ‘The Australian Curriculum, Languages’, 2013, Retrieved 3 December 2015, http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Curriculum_Languages_Info_sheet_Nov_2013.pdf.


28

languages education.107 Its planning document, which followed in 2013, showed that the

Education Department’s aim was to revive language study in the state. It included a goal that

aimed for 25 per cent of students in all sectors to include a language in their senior secondary

program of study by 2025.108 In order to reflect Victorian standards and priorities, the

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) is also developing the Victorian

Curriculum, which incorporates the Australian Curriculum. Victorian schools will begin

using this in 2017.109 The impact that these new curriculum policies and developments will

have on the teaching of languages in Victoria is yet to be determined.

2.2.4 Multiculturalism in Australia

It is important to outline the literature about multiculturalism and the way that multicultural

principles have impacted upon languages in Australia. The body of knowledge about

multiculturalism is broad, ranging from immigration, sociology, politics, history and

demography. This section will briefly present some of the main ideas about multiculturalism.

It is beyond the scope of this thesis to present a comprehensive review of the complete

literature that exists about multiculturalism.

Historians acknowledge that Australia’s population is clearly multicultural, if this country’s

demography is considered. Yet the term multiculturalism has a much deeper meaning than

this empirical description.110 Multiculturalism is “a rather ill defined concept”.111 The term

multiculturalism is a neologism, a term that was coined to describe a phenomenon for which

an adequate description did not already exist.112 The term multiculturalism was taken up in

Australia shortly after the Canadians developed it. The way that Australia adopted

107 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, The Victorian Government’s Vision for Languages Education, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Melbourne, Victoria, 2011, p. 3. Retrieved 31 March 2015, http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/department/pages/languagevision.aspx?Redirect=1. 108 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2013. 109 VCAA, ‘The Victorian Curriculum Foundation–10’, 2014, Retrieved 3 December 2015, http://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/overview/about. 110 J Collins, Migrant Hands in a Distant Land: Australia’s Post-war Immigration, Pluto Press Australia, Leichhardt, NSW, 1988, p. 226. 111 Clyne 1991, p. 19. 112 J Jupp, From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian Immigration, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Victoria, 2002, p. 83.


29

multiculturalism however, was different from other immigrant nations such as Canada and

America.113

In the Australian case, multiculturalism originated in Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney

among ALP supporters and members of the Australian Greek Welfare Society. 114

Multiculturalism in Australia was first defined in 1977 in a report written by the Australian

Ethnic Affairs Council called Australia as a Multicultural Society. However, in 1978, the

“Galbally” report was presented to the Prime Minister, Fraser. It is this report that is

considered the real “foundation document of multiculturalism”.115

The Labor Minister for Immigration from 1972-1974, Al Grassby, was considered

instrumental in generating the Whitlam government’s approach of multiculturalism.116 He

promoted what he called “the family of the nation” and it was this idea that underpinned

multiculturalism in Australia. In other words, “all are committed to the good of all”.117 It was

Grassby who later set up Task Forces to examine migrant settlement issues. The policies that

came out of the multicultural movement were practical: “The overarching policy can

therefore be seen as a form of pragmatic settlement policy, since immigration in Australia

was always planned with the dual objectives of increasing population and producing a larger

domestic workforce and economy.”118 In 1978, under a national enquiry called the Galbally

report, a new conceptualization of multiculturalism emerged. Under this initiative, the

responsibility was shifted from state to community. Minority communities were given “self

help” under partnerships with authorities in many areas, including languages.

But the policies that supported multiculturalism and multilingualism were fragile.119 In 1983,

when the Fraser coalition government was defeated, conservative critics of multiculturalism

stated that the policies set out in the Galbally report should have been the responsibility of the

states and territories. Others believed that the Galbally approach had over emphasised 113 Jupp 2002, p. 84. 114 Ibid, p. 85. 115 Ibid, p. 87. 116 Clyne 1991, p. 19. 117 AJ Grassby, A multi-cultural society for the future: a paper prepared for the Cairnmillar Institute's symposium “Strategy 2000: Australia for tomorrow”, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1973, p. 3. 118 J Lo Bianco, ‘Language Policy: At the Centre and the Margins of Australian Multiculturalism’, in A Jakubowicz and C Ho (eds), For those who've come across the seas ... Australian multicultural theory, policy and practice, Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne, 2013, pp. 198-209, p. 200. 119 Clyne 1991, p. 22.


30

cultural maintenance. The Liberal leaders that followed Fraser all criticized multiculturalism,

the most vocal of whom was John Howard. There was increasing tension in the late 1980s

between the Greek and Macedonian communities and this added fuel to the debate about

multiculturalism. 120 In the late 1980s, some of the most vociferous criticism of

multiculturalism came from the influential historian and journalist Professor Geoffrey

Blainey.121

Disapproval of multiculturalism gained momentum and by 1988, the bipartisan support that it

had once enjoyed was over.122 Howard developed a concept he called “One Australia” and he

stood by these ideas for the next fifteen years.123 In May 1989 it was announced that the

Liberal party would no longer be using the term multiculturalism.124 By 1990, when the

Liberal opposition was under the leadership of Hewson, popular support for multiculturalism

had diminished even further from the heights of the Fraser era.125 After the Howard

government consolidated its position for a third term in the 2001 election, its position became

“conservative, assimilationist, reactionary and nationalistic”.126 In fact it has been said that

the Howard government from 1996 to 2007 attempted to “wipe the multicultural slate clean”

with its efforts to substitute it with integration.127 Beazley, the Labor leader from 1996 until

2001, also neglected to address multicultural and immigration issues: “The party had no

distinctive policy in these areas.”128

In spite of the debate about multiculturalism, multicultural principles remain. “Whatever the

national government chooses to say and do, there is now a whole network of institutions and

organizations operating within multicultural principles.”129 Scholars acknowledge that the

Australian migration program is considered one of the most successful in the world.130

Multiculturalism in Australia was developed as a pragmatic method for dealing with its

120 Jupp 2002, p. 106-107. 121 Clyne 1991, p. 22. 122 Jupp 2002, p. 110. 123 Quoted in Jupp 2002, p. 111. 124 Ibid. 125 Ibid, p. 112. 126 Ibid, p. 139. 127 J Jupp & M Clyne, ‘Introduction: Multiculturalism and integration: A Harmonious Relationship’, in M Clyne and J Jupp (eds), Multiculturalism and integration: A Harmonious Relationship, ANU ePress, Canberra, 2011, pp. xiii-xxiii, p. xx. 128 Jupp 2002, p. 119. 129 J Jupp, ‘A Pragmatic Response to a Novel Situation: Australian Multiculturalism’, in G Levey (ed.) Political theory and Australian multiculturalism, Berghahn Books, New York, Oxford, 2008, pp. 225-241, p. 230. 130 Collins 1988, p. vii.


31

ethnically diverse immigrant population, rather than as an ideology.131 In the Australian case,

the focus was on the immigrant generation. “The basic question asked in Australia was…

how to ensure that non-British immigrants were integrated into Australian society.”132

2.2.6 Multiculturalism and its impact on languages

The community languages movement, which saw cultural and linguistic maintenance

programs gain government support and funding, were also aiding in this integration process,

albeit in a more intangible and indirect way. Initially, when assimilation into Australian

society was considered the primary goal, the government did not see cultural and linguistic

maintenance as a priority; it was only the priorities of ethnic organisations.133 Yet the ethnic

organisations did eventually gain government support for cultural and linguistic maintenance.

As early as 1960, the government commissioned Dovey Report recognised that the

community would benefit if migrant families retained their language, customs, and culture. It

also stated that bilingualism was desirable.134 Later, community initiated programs of cultural

and linguistic maintenance, such as ethnic schools, gained acceptance and funding. Grassby’s

Task Forces recognised the work of the ethnic schools as “a vital area of language and culture

education that deserved support” and that they should be given official recognition.135 It was

in this era when a community languages movement emerged and this was a “central element

in multicultural education and the most tangible of all policy interventions in

multiculturalism”.136

In the early to mid-1970s, there was a time when language policy and multiculturalism came

together and when debates about multiculturalism started to address language issues.

This produced a decade and a half in which the two were often co-terminus, and a productive period of national policy innovation in which multiculturalism-inspired language policy achieved international recognition for its combination of a pragmatic response to education of minority language children with an inclusive notion of citizenship.137

131 Jupp 2002, p. 101. 132 Ibid, p. 84. 133 Ibid, p. 95. 134 Ozolins 1993, p. 77. 135 Ibid, p. 115. 136 Lo Bianco 2013, p. 201. 137 Ibid, p. 198.


32

Multiculturalism influenced language policy in Australia by increasing advocacy for a range

of language resources and programs.138 Multiculturalism had a mainstreaming effect on

multilingualism in Australian society by providing a legitimisation for all languages spoken

in the community. “Whether a language is maintained for its own sake or as part of ethnic

awareness, the ‘Australianness’ of the bilingual is now generally not called into question.”139

It is now believed that multilingualism is part of our collective national identity.

Section 3. Languages education in schools

2.3.1 The current picture of language education in Australian schools

Today, the large number of language programs available to Australian school children is one

of the key features of language education in this country. However, it is difficult to obtain a

clear picture of the number of school students enrolled in languages programs due to the fact

that the education system in Australia is governed by as many as 30 educational jurisdictions.

Linguists believe, however, that there are as many as 47 languages being taught and

examined.140 Despite this large number, the vast majority of enrolments are concentrated

among six languages that continue to dominate. In 2006, these were Japanese, Italian,

Indonesian, French, German, and Chinese. Of these six languages, around half of the

enrolments were concentrated among just two; Italian and Japanese.141 Australia has been

recognised for language teaching, especially at primary and secondary school levels with

every child receiving at least some instruction in languages.142

2.3.2 The current picture of language education in Victorian schools

Within Australia, Victoria is the State with the highest rates of students participating in

language learning at school.143 In 2005, 75.1 per cent of Victorian students were studying a

138 J Lo Bianco, ‘Language Policy and Education in Australia’, in N Hornberger (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, vol. 4, Springer, 2008, pp. 343-353, p. 346. 139 Clyne 1991, p. 34. 140 Lo Bianco and Aliani 2013, p. 42. 141 Ibid. 142 Willoughby 2006, p. 3. 143 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Languages in Victorian Government Schools 2011, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Melbourne, 2012, p. 22.


33

language, compared with only 27.6 per cent of students in New South Wales.144 In fact

Victoria, along with South Australia, has the highest participation rates in language learning

in Australia.145 This is also reflected in the proportion of Year 12 students who study a

language. In 1995, it was Victoria that had the greatest proportion of Year 12 students

studying a language, followed by the ACT.146 Victoria also leads the country in that it has the

largest number of primary and secondary schools offering bilingual programs.147

The Victorian government’s most recent plan to revitalise language education in this state

includes an ambitious goal to make language programs compulsory for all students in

mainstream government schools until the end of Year 10 by 2025.148 Where the choice of

languages are concerned, the government has not articulated a case for one type of language

or another. It has not explicitly provided funding for community languages in mainstream

schools. Rather, the document is deliberately vague and allows schools to deliver programs in

the languages of their choice.

2.3.3 Senior secondary schooling and languages

In Victoria, the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA), which is a

statutory authority of the government of Victoria, and reports to the Minister of Education,

governs the administration of the two final years of secondary school, known as Year 11 and

Year 12. It provides administration and reporting for the Victorian Certificate of Education

(VCE) across Victoria. In 2014, in total, 38 languages were studied at VCE level. The five

most-studied languages were Chinese (Mandarin), French, Japanese, Vietnamese and

Indonesian.149

In regard to the least studied languages at VCE level, a collaborative system began in the late

1980s to support their administration. Under this system, for the languages with small

enrolment numbers, the states effectively share the workload of administration of 144 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. viii. 145 Ibid, p. 34. 146 S Fullarton & J Ainley, Subject choice by students in year 12 in Australian secondary Schools, LSAY Research Reports. Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth research report, no.15, 2000, p. 26. Retrieved 16 August 2012, http://research.acer.edu.au/lsay_research/13 147 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 93. 148 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2013, p. 4. 149 Department of Education and Training, Languages Provision in Victorian Government Schools, 2014 Department of Education and Training, Melbourne, 2015, p. 21.


34

examinations at senior secondary level. This was formalised in the late 1990s as the National

Assessment Framework for Languages at Senior Secondary Level (NAFLaSSL), and then

further refined in 2001 as the Collaborative Curriculum and Assessment Framework for

Languages (CCAFL).150 This system has allowed many languages with small enrolments to

continue.

In 2011, ACARA articulated its commitment to continuing support for CCAFL in the

Australian Curriculum, stating, “Continuation of the CCAFL arrangements will ensure that

the diversity of languages offered at senior secondary level, in particular the small-

candidature languages is maintained.”151 In 2013 there were some twenty-four languages

being administered under the CCAFL framework.152 Programs for languages for extremely

low candidature have been suspended in cases where less than 15 students have been enrolled

for three consecutive years. This policy has been criticised for being at odds with the

principle of multiculturalism that advocates for the importance of all languages.153

In the 1990s, the introduction of a system that awarded bonus marks to students selected for

university places had a significant impact on the number of secondary school students

undertaking language study at senior level. This strategy, as well as the system of rescaling of

marks, resulted in a rise among the number of boys choosing language study and it

maintained the number of girls undertaking language study at senior secondary level.154

2.3.4 Current problems and issues in language education

Despite the positive picture shown above, there are currently many issues that are posing

serious challenges to the area of languages education in Australia and in Victoria. Their

complexity is too great to permit a detailed description here, but ideas introduced here will be

150 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 72-73. 151 ACARA, ‘The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages’, 2011, p. 35. Retrieved 17 July 2012, http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Languages_Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum.pdf ACARA 2011. 152 These languages were Armenian, Bosnian, Croatian, Dutch, Filipino, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Khmer, Macedonian, Maltese, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Sinhala, Swedish, Tamil, Turkish, Ukrainian, and Yiddish. Source: VCAA, ‘CCAFL Languages: Updated sections for Victorian Certificate of Education Study Designs’, 2013. Retrieved 29 March 2014, www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/CCAFL-SD-template.doc. 153 Clyne and Fernandez 2008, p. 177. 154 R Teese and J Polesol, Undemocratic schooling: equity and quality in mass secondary education in Australia, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, 2003, pp. 88-90.


35

explored in more detail later. Persistent problems include low levels of student motivation, a

lack of employment prospects, a lack of support and resources in schools, and a low status of

languages in general.155 Other problems include a general perception among school students

with an English speaking background that language study is not worth the effort, that there

are easier subjects available, and that English is the dominant language anyway.156 In 1968,

Australian universities abolished language study as an entrance requirement. As a result,

enrolments in languages suddenly dropped dramatically, from around 75 per cent of final

year students studying French in 1964 to current levels of around 10 per cent.157 In addition

to these student-centred issues, it was reported in the early 1990s that there were problems

with the supply of qualified language teachers for Australian schools. By the early 2000s, it

was claimed that teacher supply was possibly the most significant issue affecting the

provision of languages across all sectors.158

For some time, there has been disquiet among scholars in the field of language education

about this country’s “monolingual mindset” and its obsession with English literacy.159

Academics have also expressed concern about a “slow burn” of a crisis in languages

education at both secondary and tertiary levels, which is causing the numbers of secondary

students choosing language study to decline to levels that are “tragic”160 and “pitiful”.161

Much of the commentary in this area continues to be gloomy, with a continuous discussion of

policies and strategies designed to “rescue” the flailing language curriculum in schools.162

Even in the case of Asian languages, which have been supported through prioritization and

two decades of funding, poor outcomes have raised alarm. 163 Commentators are also

concerned that Australia’s language policy has been refragmented, and that more languages

are now competing with each other for a smaller pool of funding.164 As a result, there are real

155 Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels 1995, p. 150. 156 Smolicz and Secombe 2003, p. 16. 157 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 20. 158 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 106. 159 M Clyne, ‘Three is too many in Australia’, in C Hélot and M Ó Laoire (eds), Language Policy for the Multilingual Classroom: Pedagogy of the Possible, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, UK, 2011, pp. 174-187, p. 174. 160 Sussex, R & M Clyne, ‘2020 Languages 2020 Future’, The Australian, 1 December 2010, Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, EBSCO host. Retrieved 22 February 2012. 161 Anderson, K and J Lo Bianco, ‘The language education debate: Speak, and ye shall find knowledge’, East Asia Forum, 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/08/the-language-education-debate-speak-and-ye-shall-find-knowledge/. 162 Dunn, A ‘Schools join forces to rescue languages’, The Age, 5 February 2012. Retrieved 10 October 2013, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/schools-join-forces-to-rescue-languages-20120204-1qyzl.html#ixzz1lS69ESV3. 163 Lo Bianco and Aliani 2013, p. 41. 164 Clyne and Kipp 2006, p. 10.


36

concerns that languages education “continues to occupy a fragile position in Australian

school education”.165

2.3.5 Providers of languages education

Presently, there are three types of providers of language education in Australia. The first is

mainstream day schools, whether they are State, Catholic or Independently run. The second is

community run out of hours “ethnic schools” or “community schools”.166 In the North

America, these are known as “heritage language schools”. This definition falls in with

Fishman and Nahirny’s classification of the Weekday Afternoon School and the Weekend

School.167 In the United Kingdom, they were previously known as “supplementary schools”,

and are now known as “complementary schools.”168 The third type of provider in Australia is

the state specialist language school, which operates on an out of hours basis.169 These are

also known as government-run specialist language schools170 as well as simply Schools of

Languages.171

2.3.6 Complementary providers: Community Language Schools (CLS)

While the VSL is not a Community Language School (CLS), these complementary language

providers are relevant to this thesis for a number of reasons. At certain times, there has been

an overlap in the languages programs offered by the VSL and CLS. This overlap has also

included students and teachers. The relationship has ebbed and flowed and the complexities

of this will be explained in further detail in later chapters.

For many decades in Australia, Community Language Schools were known as Ethnic

Schools. In this thesis, they will be named according to the immediate historical context. In

the 1980s, Ethnic Schools were defined as “part-time; community initiated and controlled;

165 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 1. 166 Clyne and Fernandez 2008, p. 169. 167 J Fishman & V Nahirny, ‘The ethnic group school and mother tongue maintenance in the United States’, Sociology of Education, vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 1964, pp. 306-317. 168 A Creese, ‘Building on Young People’s Linguistic and Cultural Continuity: Complementary Schools in the United Kingdom’, Theory Into Practice, vol. 48, no. 4, 2009, pp. 267-273, p. 267. 169 Clyne and Fernandez 2008, p. 169. 170 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 53. 171 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 95.


37

non-profit making; concerned primarily with teaching a specific community language and

then, in varying degree, other aspects of the cultural heritage of the community.”172 Around

this time, there was ignorance in Australian society about ethnic schools, even though their

claims for legitimacy were gaining momentum. 173 A brief historical overview of the

development of these schools is presented in Chapter 4 Thematic background to language

education in Victoria.

Scholars in Australia and overseas have developed a large body of literature about

community language schools. These schools are defined as organic grassroots, community

led operations that teach single languages. Scholars who research these schools refer to them

as “in-between sites” that lie between mainstream and minority institutions.174 This “in

between” positioning, between the mainstream and the alternative education systems could

appear to be a common thread between community language schools and state specialist

language schools. However research into community language schools has a strong emphasis

on the way that they act as “safe spaces for alternative discourses from dominant mainstream

positions”.175 Others describe complementary schools as “set up in response to the failure of

the mainstream education system to meet the needs of the ethnic minority children and their

communities”.176 These are fundamental differences in the cultural settings of state specialist

language schools, which operate as a part of the mainstream government school system, not

in opposition to it. These differences highlight the fact that the state specialist language

schools, and indeed the VSL, cannot be explained by this body of literature.

Today, Community Language Schools are co-ordinated, represented and supported by

Community Languages Australia (CLA), which is the Australian Federation of Ethnic

Schools Associations.177 There are more than 1200 schools in Australia, with more than

172 M Norst, ‘Ethnic schools: What they are and what they would like to be’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 3, issue 1, 1982, pp. 6-16, p. 6. 173 P Kringas and F Lewins, Why Ethnic Schools? Australian National University press, Canberra, 1981. 174 K Cruikshank, ‘Exploring the -lingual Between Bi and Mono: Young People and Their Languages in an Australian Context, in J Conteh and G Meier (eds), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges, Multilingual Matters, Bristol and Buffalo, 2014, pp. 41-63, p. 43. 175 A Creese and P Martin, ‘Interaction in Complementary School Contexts: Developing Identities of Choice – An Introduction’, Language and Education, vol. 20, issue 1, 2006, pp. 1-4, p. 2. 176 W Li, ‘Complementary Schools, Past, Present and Future’, Language and Education, vol. 20, issue 1, 2006, pp. 76-83, p. 78. 177 Community Languages Australia (CLA), ‘About Us’, 2012. Retrieved 18 July 2012, http://www.communitylanguagesaustralia.org.au/AboutUs.php#Background.


38

100,000 students enrolled in programs in 64 languages.178 Today, much of the funding that is

allocated to language education is directed at Community Language Schools. The

accreditation of Community Language Schools is managed by the Education Department in

each State and Territory. In Victoria, Community Language Schools undergo reviews of their

school policies in assessment, reporting and discipline. They are also required to have their

curriculum reviewed, and teachers are expected to undertake a specific number of hours of

professional development in language teaching methods.179

There is a great deal of diversity among community language schools and the programs they

offer. Some institutions are large and formally registered and accredited, while others are

small and informal. In addition, factors such as the length of time that the particular group has

been in Australia is also important as it has an impact on the degree to which its community

has integrated. Furthermore, this can also affect the group’s access to educational resources

and teachers. Factors such as these inevitably lead to a great deal of disparity between

Community Language Schools and the quality of programs they deliver to students.180 Clyne

believes that Community Language Schools will continue to play an important role in future

years, stating, “it can be expected that ethnic schools will remain an importance force in the

maintenance and spread of multilingualism in Australia”.181

2.3.7 Complementary providers: State specialist language schools

State specialist language schools are government schools that provide after hours and

distance education to primary and secondary students who do not have access to the study of

the language of their choice in their mainstream school. Presently, there are five government

run language schools in Australia.182 Of these institutions, the VSL is the oldest and the

largest. In 2009, these schools provided programs in a total of 52 languages.183 Each school

functions slightly differently, and they therefore represent “a diverse collection of languages

providers”.184 The state specialist language schools operate primarily on Saturday mornings

but in some cases on weekday afternoons as well. For many, but not all students, the 178 Cruikshank 2014, p. 44. 179 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 99. 180 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 54. 181 Clyne 1991, p. 131. 182 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 95. 183 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 53. 184 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 97.


39

language they study at the state specialist language school is one in which they have a home

background.185 As explained above, the state specialist language schools represent a unique

setting and there are fundamental differences between these schools and the community

language schools.

Linguists explain that in terms of the numbers of languages offered and students enrolled,

these schools offer “impressive participation and provision”.186 They are significant because

they are “centers of expertise”187 that have provided a framework for multilingualism, and

have “mainstreamed community languages” in Australia.188 Furthermore, the fact that these

schools are not ethnospecific goes some way towards acknowledgement of “language

learning and maintenance as an important Australian activity”.189

While there has been some research done into ethnic schools, there is a general dearth of

information about the state specialist language schools. While grouping them together would

appear to give them greater significance as a category, it encourages generalizations that hide

important differences between them. One report claimed that “the Schools of Languages…

[were] developed in more favorable times for language rights”.190 This statement was

presumably referring to the New South Wales’ Saturday School of Community Languages,

which was established in 1978 and South Australia’s School of Languages, which began in

1986.191 This claim is incorrect in the case of the VSL as it was the first to be established in

1935. Other authoritative texts also incorrectly suggest that the NSW State run language

school was the first to be established in 1978.192 These inaccuracies demonstrate the extent to

which there is a dearth of scholarly material about the state specialist language schools and

the VSL.

185 Clyne 2011, p. 178. 186 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 53. 187 G Extra, ‘From minority programmes to multilingual education’, in P Auer and L Wei (eds), Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, vol. 5, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2007, pp. 175-206, p. 201. 188 Clyne 2011, p. 178. 189 M Clyne, ‘Empowerment through the community language - a challenge’, in M Pütz, JA Fishman and J Neff-Van Aertselaer (eds), Along the Routes to Power: Explorations of Empowerment Through Language, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 2006, pp. 107- 126, p. 115. 190 Clyne and Kipp 2006, p. 10. 191 Liddicoat et al 2007, p. 95-96. 192 J Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education, London, Routledge, 2010, p. 113.


40

2.3.8 The Victorian School of Languages

The Victorian School of Languages is the oldest and largest of the state specialist language

schools in Australia, as its interstate counterparts offer fewer languages to smaller number of

students.193 Other states in Australia in fact adopted the VSL as a model when they sought to

establish similar language schools.194 There are several other differences between the VSL

and specialist language schools in other states such as student eligibility requirements and

staffing arrangements.

Since its origins in 1935, the VSL has grown and developed significantly. Today, the school

plays a complementary role by supporting mainstream schools in delivery of language

programs on a parallel basis. In 2015, it offers 49 languages to 13,200 students in 40 centres

via face-to-face classes. It also offers 11 languages to 1,400 students through Distance

Education. It has over 800 teachers of a multiplicity of languages distributed across

metropolitan and regional centres throughout the State of Victoria. 195 Today, linguists

consider it the “lynchpin of Victoria’s heritage language program.”196

Overseas linguists have also recognised the VSL as a model to be emulated internationally.

Extra believes that the VSL is a beacon to the European context because it has “model-

building significance for other multilingual immigrant societies.”197 He explains that “The

pioneering and widely-known policies and practices in the Victorian School of Languages

(VSL) in Melbourne, Australia constitute an excellent ‘good practice’ that can be adopted in

the European context”.198

Despite this recent recognition from linguists in Australia and overseas, the school has been

largely ignored by scholars in the field of Australian educational history. In fact apart from a

few instances, the development of the languages curriculum in general has been largely

ignored by educational historians. There are accounts of developments in the traditional

languages such as Latin and Ancient Greek, which were considered as an elite part of the

193 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 53. 194 Ozolins 1993, p. 30. 195 Source: VSL. 196 Willoughby 2006, p. 3. 197 Extra, cited in Clyne 2005, p. 170. 198 Extra, Yaǧmur, & Language Rich Europe 2012, p. 38.


41

curriculum.199 Others have explained events surrounding the development of single languages

such as Japanese.200 These contributions, however, while valuable, are limited in number and

narrow in focus.

Others have criticised educational historians for failing to explain key developments in

languages education in the early twentieth century, such as the events surrounding the

accreditation of certain languages as university entrance subjects in Victoria. They suggest

that this is can be seen as an example of “the general anglocentricity of Australian history”.201

This dearth of literature is not limited to Australia. Historians in the UK have also noted that

little is known about the development of “supplementary education” and that the literature is

patchy in that country.202

It is widely accepted that the Education Department’s tome Vision and Realisation: A

Centenary History of State Education in Victoria is an essential starting point for

investigating the history of any Victorian government school.203 In all three volumes,

however, there is only one single sentence that refers to the VSL. When explaining the state

of languages education in 1935, it simply states, “Saturday morning classes at MacRobertson

Girls School studied Japanese and Italian.”204 Furthermore, Vision and Realisation’s brief

histories of the many secondary schools that ‘hosted’ the Saturday morning classes also fail

to mention the language classes.

At the time that Vision and Realisation was published in 1973, the Saturday morning classes

had not been held at MacRobertson Girls’ High School for more than thirty years, and the

role of the VSL had grown significantly. By the early seventies it was considered “the main

199 F Campbell, ‘Latin and the Elite Tradition in Education’, British Journal of Sociology, vol. XIX, no. 3, 1968, pp. 308-25, A Barcan, ‘Latin and Greek in Australian Schools’, History of Education Review, vol. 22, no. 1, 1993, pp. 32-44, J May & H Proctor, ‘Being special: memories of the Australian public high school, 1920s-1950s’, History of Education Review, vol. 42, no. 1, 2013, pp. 55-68. 200 AGT Zainu’ddin, ‘The Teaching of Japanese at Melbourne University 1919-1941’, History of Education Review, vol. 17 no. 2, 1988, pp. 46-62. 201 F Klarberg, A Di Benedetto and M Takeuchi, ‘New University Entry Subjects in Victoria 1921 – 36: The Accreditation of Hebrew, Italian and Japanese’, in H Borland (ed.), Communication & Identity: Local, Regional, Global: Selected papers from the 1993 National Conference of the Australian Communication Association, Australian and New Zealand Communication Association, ACT, 1994, pp. 275 – 288, p. 275. 202 K Myers & I Grosvenor, ‘Exploring supplementary education: margins, theories and methods’, History of Education, vol. 40, no. 4, 2011, pp. 501-520. 203 Education Department of Victoria & LJ Blake (ed.), Vision and Realisation: A Centenary History of State Education in Victoria, Education Dept. of Victoria, Melbourne, 1973. 204 Ibid, p. 510.


42

vehicle for language learning especially for migrants in Victoria”.205 That these volumes

omitted these events at a time when the VSL was playing such a significant role for Victorian

students could be seen as a gross oversight. However, when it is considered that the early

seventies was a time when the VSL had still not been granted official school status, this

omission becomes clear. Furthermore, at this time, it appears that the VSL had still not been

given a school number, which also explains its marginality and invisibility in the official

history of state education in Victoria.

More detailed official school histories of the individual schools that “hosted” the Saturday

classes also fail to make any mention of the language classes. The history of the first school

to “host” the language classes from 1935-1942, MacRobertson Girls’ High School, makes no

mention of the Saturday language classes.206 The first history of University High School,

which “hosted” the language classes from 1942 onwards also fails to mention the language

classes.207 A more recent account does include the classes but mentions them only very

briefly.208 As suggested above, it is perhaps to be expected that historians omitted events

surrounding the establishment and delivery of Saturday language classes. It was not an

official school and the Saturday classes were a Departmental initiative that were not

technically part of those schools.

It is only in the field of languages education and linguistics where a substantial amount of

literature about the VSL has been found. Problematically, however, it is still piecemeal. A

thorough database search resulted in several scholarly articles that highlight the crucial role

of the VSL in relation to individual languages. These show that the VSL plays a very

important role to languages that have small numbers of enrolments and are not widely

represented in mainstream schools in Victoria. For example, linguists have documented the

teaching of Polish209 and Turkish210 in Melbourne. Furthermore, the school is highlighted as

205 Mascitelli and Merlino 2011, p. 45. 206 P Parker, The making of women: a history of MacRobertson Girls' High School, Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne, 2006. 207 A Hoy, A city built to music: the history of University High School, Melbourne, 1910 to 1960, University High School, Melbourne, 1961. 208 C Rasmussen, ‘A whole new world’: 100 years of education at University High School, Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne, Victoria, 2010. 209 J Janik, ‘Polish Language Maintenance of the Polish Students at the Princes Hill Saturday School in Melbourne’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 17, no. 1, 1996, pp. 3-15, B Leuner, ‘Patterns of language use: Polish migrants from the 1980s and their children in Melbourne’, Babel, vol. 44, no. 3, May 2010, pp. 26-37, L Jaber, A reflective inquiry into the teaching of post-primary Arabic in Australia, Master of Education thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne, 1997.


43

assisting in the establishment of language programs that are not represented in mainstream

schools at all, such as Slovenian.211 The VSL is also mentioned in relation to events in 2006,

where the school assisted in the delivery of a language program for Wergaia, a Victorian

aboriginal language that was revitalised.212

While the literature above is insightful, its usefulness for this study is limited as it tends to be

focused on single language issues. Several other examples of scholarly research were also

found that describe particular innovations or initiatives that the VSL has introduced.

Significantly, all of these were written by VSL staff. These include an article that highlights

the pedagogical strategies developed by teachers at the VSL who are faced with classrooms

of mixed age and mixed ability students.213 Another emphasises the VSL’s efforts to pioneer

online content for distance education students of German.214 Another claims that the VSL

demonstrates ‘best practice’ as an organization in the way that it manages the diversity of its

community of staff, students and families.215 Again, while these help to strengthen the image

of the school, they are piecemeal as they are narrowly focused on single issues.

There is only a handful of literature that describes the role of the VSL on a broader level. The

unpublished PhD thesis by Slaughter accounts for the VSL’s role in the broader language

ecology. It describes the provision of programs in five Asian languages, Chinese, Japanese,

210 ZF Beykont, ‘Substantiating Success and Improving Quality in VSL’s Secondary Turkish Program: Teacher Perspectives’, unpublished report, 2006, ZF Beykont, ‘Substantiating Success and Improving Quality in VSL’s Secondary Turkish Program: Youth Perspectives’, unpublished report, 2008, ZF Beykont, ‘“We should keep what makes us different”: youth reflections on Turkish maintenance in Australia’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 2010, no. 206, pp. 93-107, ZF Beykont, ‘“Why didn't they teach us any of this before?” Youth Appraisal of Turkish Provision in Victoria’, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 35, no. 2, 2012, pp. 156-169, ZF Beykont, ‘Building a well prepared languages teaching force: Turkish teacher perspectives’, Babel, vol. 47, no. 3, 2013, pp. 16-27. 211 A Ceferin, Slovenian language in Australia: 25 Years of Slovenian language in Victorian schools: Institute of Slovenian Studies of Victoria 1977-2002, Institute for Slovenian Studies of Victoria, Clayton North, Victoria, 2003, S Ceferin, ‘Single language association feature article: Slovenian’, Languages Victoria, vol. 12, no. 1, July 2008, pp. 40-42. 212 J Reid, ‘The rebirth of Wergaia: a collaborative effort’, in J Hobson, K Lowe, S Poetsch and M Walsh (eds), Re-Awakening Languages: Theory and Practice in the Revitalisation of Australia's Indigenous Languages, Sydney University Press, Sydney, New South Wales, 2010, pp. 240-252. 213 P Petrovska, ‘Mixed Age & Mixed Ability Classes: A Creative Approach’, Babel, vol. 31 no. 3, October – December 2006, pp. 24-26. 214 S Stojanovski, F Hollingsworth & J Saynor-Locke, ‘Online German for Secondary School Students’, in U Felix (ed.), Beyond Babel: Language Learning Online, Language Australia Ltd, Melbourne, 2001, pp. 121-136. 215 Blair, M 2002 ‘The VSL: Not “Just a Little Language School”’, Prime Focus, vol. 31, October 2002, pp. 32-33.


44

Indonesian and Korean and Vietnamese in two Australian states.216 This thesis is highlights

the VSL’s flexibility in offering programs in areas where there is demand.217 While this is a

valuable point, this study is limited also, as it is focused on issues surrounding one subset of

languages.

The 1986 study by Rowe and Martin contrasts with the studies mentioned above because it

does tackle the broader topic of the role of the school as a whole.218 Concerns about the

SSML’s position in relation to mainstream LOTE provision in Victoria were in fact the

reason why the authors were commissioned to produce this work, which is the only piece of

research to date that describes the VSL’s student body. Their survey, which used quantitative

analysis to define the socio-demographic characteristics of the student body at the Saturday

School of Modern Languages (SSML, as the VSL was previously known) and the

Correspondence School in 1986, provides a valuable snapshot of the clientele of the school at

that time.

Rowe and Martin found that in 1986, the SSML provided classes in 30 languages to 7563

students, spread over 17 centres in Victoria. One of the main aims of the SSML was to “teach

languages of the Victorian multi-ethnic community”. 219 The survey revealed that “for SSML

students, the vast majority of whom come from homes in which one or more LOTE are

spoken, the provision of community LOTE services appear to be meeting the desires of their

families for mother-tongue maintenance.”220

In 1986, these survey results were adapted and published as a book.221 In this publication,

student motivation for enrolling at the SSML was explored in greater depth. It explained that

92.3 per cent of SSML students surveyed stated that their day school did not teach the

216 Y Slaughter, The Study of Asian Languages in Two Australian States: Considerations for Language-in-Education Policy and Planning, PhD thesis, School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne, 2007. 217 Ibid, p. 134. 218 K Rowe and L Martin, ‘Languages Other Than English: A Survey of Student Needs’, Theory, structure and action in education, November 1986, pp. 2-20. 219 Ibid, p. 4. 220 Ibid, p. 18. 221 KJ Rowe, & Victoria. Schools Division, LOTE services to students: languages other than English at the Correspondence School and the Saturday School of Modern Languages, Ministry of Education (Schools Division), Melbourne, 1986.


45

language at this level, suggesting that the SSML did in fact respond to a significant gap in

mainstream language education.222

All of the above authors agree that the VSL is a unique institution that carries out an

important role for Victorian students of languages other than English. Yet they do not provide

any explanation for how the VSL was established or developed. The first published attempts

at explaining the school’s history appears to be that of Merlino223 followed shortly after by

Abiuso and Kleinhenz. 224 Abiuso and Kleinhenz provide a brief but valuable chronicle of

events, beginning with the school’s establishment in 1935 as a “special experiment”. It also

includes relevant dates, key figures in the history of the school, and an account of the typical

day-to-day operations of the school. This piece, written for a broader audience, only includes

the briefest of context in relation to political and cultural trends in Australian society. It

contains some valuable information, but as it is unsubstantiated, it needs further investigation.

Merlino’s history of the VSL is more detailed and comprehensive as it does chronicle events

in the school’s development against the broader context of changes to Australian society and

education policy.225 With many details on staffing, students, and information about the

Education Department’s official recognition of the school as a government school in 1987, it

offers this thesis a valuable starting point. While these offerings have been extremely

valuable, it is important to consider that the authors have all been VSL staff members. This

represents an important limitation of these sources, because as staff members, it is quite

possible that their accounts of the school’s history were biased. Problems such as bias in the

writing of history will be explored further in Chapter 3 Research Methodology.

There are several unpublished research papers that describe the role and the history of the

VSL that should be included here. Again, they agree that the VSL has played an important

role in the field of languages education in Victoria. The first of these is the PhD thesis by

Forster, who again, had a personal involvement with the school as a staff member.226 Forster

222 Ibid, p. 32. 223 F Merlino, ‘The Victorian School of Languages 1935-1988: A brief history’, Ailanto, Journal of the Victorian School of Languages, no. 1, 1988, pp. 9-20. 224 G Abiuso and E Kleinhenz, ‘The Victorian School of Languages and Ethnic Communities 1935 – 1988’, Partnerships in Education, 1989. 225 Merlino 1988. 226 B Forster, The politics of languages other than English as a curriculum area in Victorian state schools, 1950-1987, PhD thesis, Faculty of Education, Monash University, 1992.


46

also explains the origins of the VSL in terms of the “special experiment” in 1935.227 Forster

traces the growth of the SSML within the broader development of languages education in

Victoria. She calls the school a “success story” in terms of its ballooning enrolments and

diversification of languages during the 1970s. This was despite a general decline in languages

in mainstream schools during the same period.228 She attributes this success to the school’s

flexible approach, community involvement and its accessibility to all students regardless of

academic ability. Forster also notes that it was “free from the restrictions of the day school

curriculum”.229

Controversially, however, Forster is critical of the Education Department, asserting that the

diversification of the language curriculum in Victoria has for decades developed outside of

the curriculum of mainstream schools, and that it continues to follow this pattern today.230

She also claims that the Education Department’s only response to calls to revitalise the

language curriculum during the 1970s was the existence of the SSML. In doing so, the

curriculum of the day schools was left “largely untouched”231 and she laments that the SSML

“could have acted as an important model for curriculum development in secondary

schools”.232 Controversially, Forster views the success of the VSL in light of the state’s

reluctance to further develop the teaching of languages in mainstream schools, and claims

that “the Victorian Education Department/Ministry was prepared to use it as an official ethnic

school and as an excuse not to develop this curriculum area in day schools.”233 It is important

to note that Mascitelli and Merlino in their peer-reviewed paper in 2011 (see below) disagree

with this argument, suggesting that Forster’s views are “retrospective.”234

Panousieris is yet another former VSL staff member to write about the school.235 The purpose

of his thesis was to describe the events and issues that led to a government review of the VSL

in 1991, and it includes a critique of the review itself. Interestingly, Panousieris suggests that

one reason why the government decided to conduct the review of the VSL was “an attempt to

227 Ibid, p. 17. 228 Ibid, p. 139. 229 Ibid, p. 140. 230 Ibid, p. 17. 231 Ibid, p. 153. 232 Ibid, p. 169. 233 Ibid, p. xv. 234 Mascitelli and Merlino 2011, p. 43. 235 G Panousieris, A critical analysis of the review of the Victorian School of Languages 1991, Master of Education thesis, Centre for Comparative and Policy Studies in Education, La Trobe University, 1993.


47

halt the unrestrained growth of LOTE within the VSL by re-establishing LOTE as a priority

study within mainstream schools”.236 This opinion is in contrast to Forster’s view that the

VSL was developed as a government strategy to avoid the promotion of LOTE in mainstream

schools.

Panousieris describes changes in the school’s clientele over the decades in light of

recommendations that were made in the Ministry of Education’s 1986 Review of LOTE in

Victoria. The Languages Other Than English Implementation Group recommended that the

SSML expand its operations to cater for a wider clientele, and that “The SSML offer tuition

in languages to students of other than non-English speaking background”.237 The author

offers a critical view on the VSL, and claims that “The school’s programs, instructors and

classes continued to be geared to language maintenance”, 238 thus denying English speaking

background students the right to study languages. Panousieris argues that the school failed to

fulfil this requirement of the review. He added, “The VSL should not function merely as a

Government-funded ethnic super-school”.239 Both Forster and Panousieris seem to agree that

the VSL has, during different periods, had a very complex relationship with mainstream

schools and positioned itself differently in relation to the wider provision of language

education in Victoria.

Also important to include here is an unpublished Master of Education essay by Kleinhenz,

another staff member.240 In this essay, Kleinhenz, who worked at the VSL at the time, gives

another short history of the school from 1935 until 1989, but like Forster, includes criticism

of the Education Department. She claims that those in the Department and the Ministry from

the 1960s until the 1990s saw the school as nothing more than an inconvenience. She asserts

that staff in the Department and Ministry hoped the school would go away. During key

periods of extreme growth in the 1970s in particular, Kleinhenz states, “It [the Department]…

seems to have acted like the proverbial coy maiden, granting favours graciously and

rarely.”241 These opinions demonstrate that the position and role of the VSL has been a point

of contention among those in the field of language teaching for some time.

236 Ibid, p. 7. 237 Ibid, p. 10. 238 Ibid 239 Ibid. 240 E Kleinhenz, ‘The Victorian School of Languages 1935-1989’, Master of Education essay, Education, Monash University, 1989. 241 Ibid, p. 8.


48

The claims put forward by Forster, Panousieris and Kleinhenz demonstrate how little is

documented about the way that the VSL’s role and function developed over time. It shows

that scholars of linguistics have not analysed the VSL’s role and function in the education

system.

Today, the Education Department often highlights the role of the VSL. In the Victorian

government’s most recent published plan for languages, titled, Languages- expanding your

world: Plan to implement The Victorian Government's vision for languages education 2013 –

2025, the VSL is highlighted as a key player in the field. It suggests that it is because of this

“well established complementary provider” that Victoria can boast of “the highest

participation rate in languages education of any state or territory in Australia”.242 In addition,

in the Education Department’s annual reports into language education, the VSL is regularly

named as one of the state’s key providers. In 2011, the report stated: “The provision of

Languages education is a matter of careful planning and coordination between the various

providers including mainstream government primary schools and secondary colleges, the

Victorian School of Languages (VSL) and community languages schools.”243 This wording

creates the impression that the VSL is an institution that the State government has

purposefully designed to fulfil a valid and specific function.

As mentioned earlier, Leitner speculated on the development of the VSL in terms of the

tension between top down “macro” language policy and bottom up, community driven

“micro” language policy.244 It is a very brief reference to the language policy aspect of the

VSL’s development that certainly warrants further exploration. To what extent the VSL was a

grass roots initiative, and in what way it was absorbed by a top-down policy is a key

theoretical concept that represents an important gap in the literature for this study.

There is only one piece of work to date that has been published in a peer reviewed academic

journal that offers a historical explanation of the establishment and development of the VSL,

and that is by Mascitelli and Merlino.245 In this article, they ask the important question of

242 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2013, p. 4. 243 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Languages in Victorian government schools 2010, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Melbourne, 2011, ‘Preface’. 244 Leitner 2004, p. 263. 245 Mascitelli and Merlino 2011.


49

whether the VSL was an accident or whether it was designed to become what it is today.

They explain that the school was set up in 1935 as a small, isolated initiative by an individual,

John Seitz, the Chief Inspector of Secondary Schools (CISS). The “special experiment”

occurred at a time when monolingualism dominated Australian society. Even more

remarkable was that the two languages to be taught were Japanese and Italian, the languages

of two enemy countries.246 With Japan and Italy’s entry into World War II, Seitz was

pressured to abandon the Japanese and Italian classes, yet he resisted, and the lessons

continued.247 Mascitelli and Merlino make it clear that the “special experiment” originated in

the face of a broader social context of monolingualism and widespread rejection of diversity

in Australia during the interwar years.

Yet in later decades, key milestones in the school’s history actually matched broader contexts.

Nineteen eighty seven was an important year for both language teaching in Australia and for

the Saturday School of Modern Languages, as it had since become known. It was in this year

when Australia adopted its first official language policy, the National Policy on Languages.

This was “a product of a new demographic panorama which reflected a new Australia”.248

For the school itself, 1987 was also the year when the school was officially recognised as a

government school and when it was given its name the Victorian School of Languages.249

This dramatic turnaround in the broader context of languages education and policy in a

changing nation highlights the complexities of languages as a curriculum area.250 The authors

conclude that the VSL’s origins were indeed accidental and unplanned, but that the school

did over time, become an established institution, “which is today seen as an inalienable part

of Victoria’s educational landscape.”251

Yet in asking how the school gained and maintained legitimacy in the Victorian education

system, Mascitelli and Merlino highlight an important yet unanswered question about the

school’s existence, and how it managed to shift its status from experimental to official. It

represents a fitting starting point for this study as it is a recent work that highlights the issue

of the school’s status and how it gained legitimacy within the education system.

246 Ibid, p. 41. 247 Ibid, p. 43. 248 Ibid, p. 46. 249 Ibid. 250 Ibid. 251 Ibid, p. 47.


50

To date, no authors have analysed the VSL’s journey towards legitimacy as an organisation.

There are many theories from a range of disciplines that scholars use as a means to analyse

and interpret issues of organisational legitimacy in education systems. Due to the vast nature

of this body of knowledge, it is not possible to provide a review of that literature here. This

thesis does, however, make use of a select few of those theoretical lenses to analyse the

VSL’s journey towards legitimacy. Namely, it uses the theory developed by Meyer and

Rowan, from the field of sociology.252 It also uses the theory of the Organizational Saga,

from the educational historian Clark.253 In addition, it makes use of the ideas developed by

applied linguists Mercurio and Scarino, who have written about heritage language

communities and how they achieve and maintain legitimacy within the curriculum.254

Further discussion about these theories, the reasons for their selection, and the ways that these

theories are used in this thesis will be given in Chapter 3 Research Methodology.

2.4 The literature gap

As shown above, academics have produced a detailed body of scholarly knowledge about

language education in Australia.255 Yet problematically, there is a very limited literature

about state specialist language schools. A handful of linguists have described these schools

very briefly but there is an absence of detailed analysis of their role and development in

relation to the mainstream school system.256 At times, the literature related to state specialist

language schools is incorrect, highlighting the gap in scholarly knowledge about this

sector.257 In addition, it appears that historians of Australian education have not documented

these schools at all.258 This means that government complementary providers and the VSL

are effectively absent from the “grand narrative” of the history of Australian education. This

represents a significant challenge for this study.

It is clear that the literature about the VSL itself is also very limited and hidden. It is only in

the field of languages education and linguistics where the limited amount of literature about

252 Meyer and Rowan 1977. 253 Clark 1972. 254 Mercurio and Scarino 2005. 255 Clyne 1991 and 2005, Liddicoat et al 2007, Lo Bianco 2003, Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, Ozolins 1993, Romaine 1991. 256 Clyne 2006 and 2011, Clyne and Fernandez 2008, Liddicoat et al 2007, Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009. 257 Banks 2010, p. 113, Clyne and Kipp 2006, p. 10. 258 Education Department of Victoria & Blake 1973.


51

the VSL has been produced, much of it unpublished.259 In some instances, the VSL has

received special recognition from experts in the linguistics field, but these are very brief.260

The remaining literature tends to adopt a narrow view, focusing only on the VSL’s role in

relation to single issues261 or single languages.262 For these reasons, the majority of the

existing literature about the VSL tends to be small scale and piecemeal. Some have penned

amateur school histories of the school, but these are limited in scope and possibly biased,

because the authors were staff members at the school.263 To date, there have been no large-

scale investigations of the VSL’s history and there have been no attempts to illuminate the

school’s quest for legitimacy.

Another area that this thesis aims to extend is located within the discipline of language policy

and planning. Leitner touched on the debate around the tension that exists between “macro”

and “micro” language policy and planning, and how this relates to the VSL.264 This is an

important area that warrants further investigation and ought to be resolved. Just how the VSL

relates to these concepts is problematic because these ideas have not yet been fully developed.

This thesis seeks to measure the case of the VSL against the literature and explore the

possibility of it being a real life example of these special types of language policy and

planning.

In addition, this thesis will address several theoretical gaps in the literature. It will use theory

from the fields of sociology, education and applied linguistics to analyse the ways that the

VSL attempted to gain and maintain legitimacy within the education system. It will use the

theories of Meyer and Rowan to analyse the school’s journey towards its status as a valid and

accepted state school in Victoria.265 It will also use the ideas developed by Mercurio and

Scarino to analyse the journey that the language communities travelled in order to gain and

maintain a legitimated place in the education system. 266 To support these theoretical

259 Forster 1992, Panousieris 1993, Rowe and Martin 1986, Rowe & Victoria. Schools Division 1986. 260 Extra, cited in Clyne 2005, Extra, Yaǧmur & Language Rich Europe 2012, Leitner 2004, Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, Willoughby 2006. 261 Blair 2002, Petrovska 2006, Stojanovski, Hollingsworth & Saynor-Locke 2001. 262 Beykont 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2013, Ceferin 2003, Jaber 1997, Janik 1996, Leuner 2010, Reid 2010. 263 Abiuso and Kleinhenz 1989, Kleinhenz 1989, Mascitelli and Merlino 2011, Merlino 1988. 264 Leitner 2004, p. 263. 265 Meyer and Rowan 1977. 266 Mercurio and Scarino 2005.


52

investigations, Clark’s theory of the Organizational Saga will also be used as a way to

analyse the emotional aspects of the VSL’s journey towards legitimacy.267

2.5 Conclusion

As shown above, the literature about the VSL itself is piecemeal and fragmented, and without

a comprehensive analysis about the VSL, the body of knowledge about language education in

this country is incomplete. This thesis will bring the VSL’s history out of the shadows and

into the light. It will address the current literature gap that exists in relation to language

teaching and languages education in Australia, by providing a detailed analysis of Australia’s

first state specialist language school, the VSL. It will aim to investigate how the VSL and its

language communities managed to gain and maintain legitimacy in the Victorian education

system. It will also interpret the ways that this school interacted with language policy on

macro and micro levels. Yet in addition to these empirical gaps in the literature, this thesis

will also endeavour to address theoretical gaps. It will use theories from sociology, education

and applied linguistics to analyse and interpret the VSL’s journey towards legitimacy. It will

use these theories as a lens to examine how the school made the transition from “special

experiment” to its official status as legitimate state specialist language school.

267 Clark 1972.

Chapter 3. Research Methodology

53


3.1 Introduction: A story and a study

This chapter provides the conceptual framework used in this thesis. It outlines the research

problems and the techniques and methodologies that were utilised to approach them. This

chapter also explains the way that the data will be presented and the reasons for them being

presented in this way. This thesis is primarily a historical investigation of the VSL, but more

than just a story about the history of the VSL. It is “both a story and a study”,1 one which

investigates key issues and events in the history of the VSL. For this reason, this thesis uses a

combination of approaches and theories to document, analyse and interpret the growth of this

remarkable organisation.

The principal approach to the story of the VSL is the methodology of historical inquiry.

Historical inquiry is an inductive approach that involves several stages of criticism, synthesis

and interpretation. A data set was created in accordance with historical practice, and this

involved the development of a chronological narrative that was organised with several key

principles in mind. The historical narrative was then treated as an artifact, as a text that could

itself be analysed and interpreted theoretically.

Historical methodology was chosen because it is most appropriate for the investigation of

institutions. It enables scholars to “focus systematically on past events, using archival

documents and retrospective interpretations of actors in an effort to understand the processes

by which institutions emerge, self-maintain, and erode”. 2 Historical investigations of

educational topics are most appropriate because they “aid in the development of knowledge

and the improvement of practices. By comprehending educational concepts and events of the

past, one can better understand educational policies, trends, and practices of the present”.3

Furthermore, “An understanding of the history of useful institutions encourages people to

1 Butterfield quoted in Bailyn 1982, p. 7, my emphasis. 2 R Suddaby and R Greenwood, ‘Methodological Issues in Researching Institutional Change’, in D Buchanan and A Bryman, The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage Publications, London, 2001, pp. 176-195, p. 183. 3 McMillan and Schumacher 2001, p. 517.


54

respect them and co-operate with them”.4 This point is especially true for the VSL, because

few have attempted to explain the key features of its history and its development. More

importantly, there has not been an investigation of the school’s quest for legitimacy and its

efforts to become accepted and recognised. In addressing the key questions of its existence,

this thesis aims to rectify this gap and build a new level of understanding about this unique

school.

Through historical inquiry and analysis, the theme of legitimacy strongly emerged as a

central problem that is inherent to the VSL’s history. During the data collection exercise it

became clear that multiple struggles for legitimacy took place throughout the VSL’s history.

These can be seen as a struggle for the legitimacy of the school itself and also for the

legitimacy of the language communities and curriculum areas that the school sought to

represent. Several key theories and approaches that had the potential to explain and analyse

the issue of legitimacy were then selected and utilised in the study. These came from a range

of disciplines, including education, sociology and applied linguistics. These theories

illuminate and further explain the processes involved in the gaining and maintaining of

legitimacy.

3.2 Conceptual framework

As demonstrated in the Literature Review, there is a dearth of scholarly studies about the

history and development of state specialist language schools and about the VSL. For this

reason, there was no conceptual framework that was already in existence that could readily be

replicated or utilised for this study. Therefore, the conceptual framework for this thesis was

designed from several frameworks and ideas that were found in other studies and disciplines,

and these were adapted and tailored to suit this thesis. The conceptual framework for this

study consists of six iterative stages, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. It shows the stages that were

involved in this study’s research processes. These iterative steps will be explained in detail

throughout this chapter.

4 CB McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1984, p. 3.


55

Figure 3.1 Conceptual framework


56

3.3 The literature review and the literature gap

As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the first two stages of the research process involved a thorough

review of the existing literature, which exposed a significant gap in that literature. It showed

that although linguists have generated a great deal of relevant scholarly knowledge about the

state and nature of language education in Australia,5 there is a limited body of knowledge

about state specialist language schools and the VSL.6 The majority of the existing literature

about the VSL tends to be limited in scope and piecemeal.7 This thesis seeks to redress this

significant gap and to provide a first scholarly analysis of the VSL’s journey towards

legitimacy.

A similar gap exists in literature that is specific to the VSL. It is only in the field of languages

education and linguistics where a limited amount of literature about the VSL has been written,

much of it unpublished.8 The VSL has received special recognition from several linguists for

the special role that it plays, but problematically, much of this is very brief.9 Much of the

remaining literature is narrow in its focus, concentrating only on the VSL’s role in relation to

single issues10 or single languages.11 Therefore the majority of the existing literature about

the VSL tends to be limited in scope and piecemeal. Previous attempts to account for the

school’s history are narrow in their focus and possibly biased, due to the fact that the authors

were associated with the school.12 The VSL plays a very important part in completing the

overall picture of language provision in Victoria, yet without a detailed account of its role,

the body of knowledge about language education remains incomplete and unclear. This thesis

seeks to redress this significant gap and to provide a first scholarly analysis of key issues in

the VSL’s history and development. In particular, it aims to focus on the VSL’s journey

towards legitimacy and how it gained and maintained its official status in the education

system.

5 Clyne 1991 and 2005, Liddicoat et al 2007, Lo Bianco 2003, Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, Ozolins 1993, Romaine 1991. 6 Education Department of Victoria & Blake 1973. 7 Clyne 2006 and 2011, Clyne and Fernandez 2008, Liddicoat et al 2007, Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009. 8 Forster 1992, Panousieris 1993, Rowe and Martin 1986, Rowe & Victoria. Schools Division 1986. 9 Extra, cited in Clyne 2005, Extra, Yaǧmur & Language Rich Europe 2012, Leitner 2004, Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, Willoughby 2006. 10 Blair 2002, Petrovska 2006, Stojanovski, Hollingsworth & Saynor-Locke 2001. 11 Beykont 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2013, Ceferin 2003, Jaber 1997, Janik 1996, Leuner 2010, Reid 2010. 12 Abiuso and Kleinhenz 1989, Kleinhenz 1989, Mascitelli and Merlino 2011, Merlino 1988.


57

3.4 Developing the research questions

The next stage in the research process for this thesis was the development of the theoretical

research questions. These were designed to address the gap in the literature about the role of

the VSL and its origins. This study was guided by two open-ended research questions and

they were intended to provide this research with a specific focus. These were refined several

times throughout the development of the thesis. The two guiding research questions were:

1. How did the VSL and its language communities gain legitimacy within the education

system?13

2. How was the VSL shaped by “macro” and “micro” language policy and planning? 14

These research questions were developed in order to facilitate a historical analysis of the

VSL’s origins and development. It was important for this study to focus on the VSL as a

whole institution, rather than to concentrate on smaller aspects of its operations or to examine

micro level, single language issues. Because this thesis will be the first scholarly analysis of

the VSL, it was important to concentrate on analysing the broad issues concerning the

school’s struggle with legitimacy as a whole. It is anticipated that future scholars will then be

able to focus on language specific issues or micro level problems within the VSL’s history

and development.

3.5 The Story: Developing the narrative using the history method

This thesis utilised a combination of approaches that represent a unique and specially tailored

conceptual framework for investigating the VSL. As shown in Figure 3.1, historical

methodology was the first approach to be utilised. The bulk of the qualitative data that was

used in this study was primary source material. This data was handled and interpreted in

keeping with the process involved in historical inquiry, which is known as the History

Method. Historical inquiry is an inductive approach and it was used to produce a narrative,

which was treated as a “data set”. The techniques involved in historical methodology will be

13 Clark 1972, Mercurio and Scarino 2005, Meyer and Rowan 1977. 14 Leitner 2004, p. 263.


58

explained in detail below. This material was then utilised in combination with other

theoretical approaches, which will be explained later in this chapter.

3.5.1 What is history?

At first glance, it may appear that the purpose of a historical investigation of the VSL would

simply be to show how the school “really was.” In the 1800s, many believed that this was the

purpose of history.15 But in his study of historiography entitled “What is history?” E. H. Carr

challenged this definition. At that time, historians were convinced about the primacy of facts

and they strongly held on to that belief for many decades. This fitted in with the worldview of

the positivists who sought to establish that history was a science. They believed that facts

should be gathered and then conclusions could be drawn from them. This idea was closely

aligned to the view of the empiricists who held on to the theory of knowledge that subjects

and objects were completely separate.16 This led to what E. H. Carr calls the “commonsense

view of history” which asserts that “history consists of a corpus of ascertained facts”.17 He

dismisses this idea, stating, “The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively

and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy”.18

Acknowledging that the researcher’s interpretations of available materials is important,

scholars also admit that it is unlikely that two historians working on the same set of historical

evidence would interpret events in the same way.19 Ianziti concedes, “truth in history is

unattainable; all history is but an approximation of what actually happened”.20 In this respect,

it is important to state that the interpretation of key events and the investigation into questions

regarding the VSL’s history that is presented in this thesis may differ from that of another

scholar who drew on the same set of primary sources.

It is clear that in order to tackle the research questions, this study must be based not only on a

series of facts, but also the interpretation of those facts. But to what extent should the author’s

interpretation of the VSL’s history be included in this thesis? In the 1940s, Collingwood 15 EH Carr, What is history? Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1990, p. 8. 16 Ibid, p. 9. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid, p. 12. 19 G Ianziti, ‘Historiography and its Discontents: The Windschuttle Gambit’, History Australia, vol. 2, no. 2, 2005, pp. 43-1-43-10, p. 43-6. 20 Ibid, p. 43-8.


59

asserted that “The philosophy of history is concerned neither with ‘the past by itself’ nor with

‘the historian’s thought about it by itself’, but with ‘the two things in their mutual

relations.”21 E.H. Carr agrees that “[history] is a continuous process of interaction between

the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.” 22

Therefore, this thesis aims to investigate this unending dialogue between the VSL’s present

and its past in order to tackle the research questions.

Recently, there have been disagreements between supporters of traditional approaches to

history and supporters of post structuralist approaches to history. Traditional or empiricist

historians still believe that history continues to be “inductive argument constructed out of

evidence”.23 Post structuralist historians, on the other hand, believe that “history is a ‘shifting

discourse’ in which there are no facts, only interpretations which are epistemologically,

methodologically, ideologically and practically positioned.”24 While it may seem as though

historians are completely polarised, individual scholars take different approaches depending

on their research interests and their own perspectives.25 It is for that reason that the

conceptual framework for this thesis was tailored specifically to this study. It aims to answer

the research questions with the aid of several selected theories that will be outlined later in

this chapter.

3.5.2 The history method

Contemporary scholars admit that “Historiographical practices tend to vary across the

profession. They [historiographical practices] also tend to be controversial and remain to a

large extent uncodified.”26 Others point out that there is a general ambivalence among

historians about discussion of methods.27 Despite this, it is accepted that historians are

beholden to tell the truth. In order to do this, it is essential that they adhere to an “intricate”

process in order to demonstrate that every historical statement has been validated and can be

21 Collingwood, quoted in Carr 1990, p. 21. 22 Carr 1990, p. 30. 23 Windschuttle, quoted in C Trimingham Jack, ‘School History: Constructing the Lived Experience’, History of Education Review, vol. 26, no. 1, 1997, pp. 42–55, p. 42. 24 Jenkins, quoted in Trimingham Jack, 1997, p. 42. 25 Trimingham Jack, 1997, p. 44. 26 Ianziti, 2005, p. 43-2. 27 C Potter and R Romano, Doing Recent History: On Privacy, Copyright, Video Games, Institutional Review Boards, Activist Scholarship, and History That Talks Back, University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia, 2012, p. 2


60

defended.28 Traditionally, the history method consisted of three elements. The first is

identifying and finding sources. The second stage is analysis, using critical thinking skills,

and the third stage is synthesis or interpretation.29

3.5.3 Historical analysis

After the location and the selection of primary and secondary sources, the second stage is the

analysis of those sources. Armed with a healthy degree of scepticism, historians must

undertake the critical method when analysing each piece of primary source material. This is

usually divided into two stages of critical thinking, namely external and internal criticism.30

External criticism involves the evaluation and the interpretation of each document. This

involves asking the fundamental question: “Is the source authentic?”31 First, it must be

explored “from the outside”.32 To do this, it must be determined “where, when, why and by

whom” each document was produced.33 This provides the key to a document’s authenticity

and provenance.

The next stage, which is internal criticism, involves asking, “What exactly do the words in

the document mean?”34 Scholars look at the literal statements in the document as well as its

“real meaning”.35 Furthermore, researchers must establish whether there is any bias or

prejudice in the author’s writing, whether the author is competent, and more or less determine

whether there is truth in the author’s argument.36 Documents that were written with a

restricted audience in mind are considered more valuable than those that were written for the

purpose of advancing the author’s own interests. “[I]n general the fewer the number for

whose eyes the document was meant (i.e. the greater its confidential nature), the more ‘naked’

its contents are likely to be.”37 The vast majority of the primary sources that were used in this

28 D Fischer, Historians' fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought, Harper & Row, New York, 1970, p. 40. 29 S Grigg, ‘Archival Practice and the Foundations of Historical Method’, The Journal of American History, vol. 78, no. 1, 1991, pp. 228-239, p. 228. 30 Ibid. 31 L Stephens, Probing the Past: A Guide to the Study and Teaching of History, Allyn and Bacon, Longwood Division, Boston, Massachusetts, 1974, p. 37. 32 G Renier, History, its purpose and method, Allen & Unwin, London, 1950, p. 162. 33 M Robyns, ‘The Archivist as Educator: Integrating Critical Thinking Skills into Historical Research Methods Instruction’, The American Archivist, vol. 64, Fall/Winter 2001, pp. 363–384, p. 370. 34 Ibid, p. 371, JD Milligan, ‘The Treatment of an Historical Source’, History and Theory, vol. 18, no. 2, 1979, pp. 177-196, p. 181. 35 Ibid, p. 182. 36 Robyns 2001, p. 371. 37 Gottschalk quoted in Milligan 1979, p. 184, emphasis in original.


61

study are from archived Education Department files. They are internal correspondence about

the VSL and they were not intended for a broad audience, so it can be said that they are

highly likely to be reliable.

Other techniques for establishing the reliability of a statement is to examine the nature of the

statement itself. Statements that are more likely to be accurate include those that are general

knowledge and incidental.38 For this thesis, this was an important technique for determining

the validity or the reliability of statements that were gathered through the interview process.

When interpreting the interview transcripts, some statements about the VSL could be used

and others could not. Some individuals had a particular agenda that they wished to pursue,

because of their own personal set of circumstances or experiences in relation to the VSL.

Some of the statements from those people had to be treated very carefully, and in some cases

their stories could not be completely relied upon.

3.5.4 Synthesis or interpretation

The final step in the history method is synthesis or interpretation.39 This aspect of historical

inquiry has been described as a circular process, “because of the interrelationships of the

research problem, sources, criticism, analysis, and explanations”.40 Traditionally, historians

have been preoccupied with investigating the “causes” of past events. 41 To develop

explanations for causes, researchers usually start with facts concerning a particular event,

such as who, what, when or where. They then use these questions as a basis to interrogate the

way a historical event unfolded and the reasons for it. This then enables the researcher to

begin to develop generalisations and then to develop causal explanations. “The researcher

operates primarily in an inductive mode of reasoning, going from the specific facts to

generalisations”.42 When pieces of evidence inevitably contradict each other, the historian

will seek further information to make a judgement. Possibility, plausibility, consistency, and

an accumulation of evidence help the researcher to make these decisions. The cyclic process

continues, and the researcher constantly reanalyses the documents and generalisations in

terms of “context, internal consistency, documentation, accumulation of evidence, and logical 38 McMillan and Schumacher 2001, p. 513. 39 Grigg 1991, p. 228. 40 McMillan and Schumacher 2001, p. 507. 41 Carr 1990, p. 87. 42 McMillan and Schumacher 2001, p. 515.


62

induction”.43 Scholars may then make broader statements about the status of knowledge on

the topic, by making recommendations for policy makers or by suggesting areas for further

research.44

3.5.5 Bias

The practice which has been condemned as “deplorable” and which must be avoided at all

costs is bias.45 Historical explanations that are unintentionally inaccurate due to a researcher’s

mistake or an oversight are not biased, but simply wrong or unjustified.46 “A biased account

of an institution will emphasize the role of those aspects the historian wants to praise or

blame for its success or failure, ignoring the equally significant contribution of others.”47

There are many techniques for minimising an author’s personal bias. These include “letting

past people tell their own stories as much as possible; and… [gathering] as many voices

about a subject as possible, to get as many perspectives on it as one can.”48 Rather than

attempting to orchestrate the voices into a consensus, the goal is to gather multiple

viewpoints to create a full account of events. However, historians should not see their role as

simply to assemble a range of opinions. “The historian's task is to create an account of the

history that will explain why each group had the views of it which it had.”49

3.5.6 School histories

The VSL as a school is unusual in that it specialises in one subject area and it delivers the

subject in an out of hours setting. Although it is a non-traditional school, it is still very much

a school. Indeed it is precisely for these very reasons that the VSL was required to seek

legitimacy as a school. For this thesis, it is important to take into account the many theoretical

and methodological ideas that historians of education have developed in relation to the

writing of school histories.

43 Ibid, p. 517. 44 Ibid. 45 CB McCullagh, ‘Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation’, History and Theory, vol. 39, no. 1, 2000, pp. 39-66, p. 39. 46 Ibid, p. 40. 47 Ibid, p. 51. 48 Ibid, p. 52. 49 Ibid, p. 59.


63

The work of the Australian educational historian Theobald is particularly pertinent to this

thesis. In her 1977 paper titled Problems in writing school histories, she criticised school

histories as a genre. Lamenting that “School histories have long been a blight upon the

landscape of historical research”. 50 Theobald attributed their proliferation to amateur

authorship and claimed that school histories were “narcissistic in approach”. 51 School

histories, in her view, failed to “break out of the hot house atmosphere of adulation and self-

congratulation”.52 The educational historian Selleck also criticised school histories for the

same reason. Placing emphasis on the heroic achievements of a school’s leaders and

administrators is also called the “Whig” approach. As he explains, “Some writers treat

schools not only as islands but as island kingdoms, ruled by proud and distant monarchs

whose every word is wise and every act benevolent.”53 It is appropriate, therefore, that this

study does not shy away from criticising the VSL or its administrators where necessary.

Selleck also urged scholars to examine the broader social environments in which schools

develop, stating: “No school is an island, though when we come to write the history of

schools we often act as if they were. They are frequently treated as lonely and isolated

institutions protected from the social, political and economic gales which buffet the rest of

society.”54 It is for this reason that this study will look to the contextual influences of

Australia’s changing approaches to languages and multilingualism as a means to explain the

VSL’s development. Indeed, it can be argued that much of the school’s development can be

attributed to these external forces, and that they have played such an integral role that they

cannot be ignored. Investigation of the role of external forces is central to the research

question which asks, “How was the VSL shaped by “macro” and “micro” language policy

and planning?” 55 As will be explained later in this chapter, the necessity to include an

analysis of the role of external social norms was a key factor in the choice of theory to be

utilised.

In her 1996 history of MacRobertson Girls High School, Parker points out that there has been

a marked proliferation of school histories in recent years because many schools have

50 M Theobald, ‘Problems in Writing School Histories’, History of Education Review, vol. 6, no. 1, 1977, pp. 22-28, p. 22. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Selleck in Theobald 1978. 54 Ibid. 55 Leitner 2004, p. 263.


64

commissioned a school history to mark their centenary celebrations. However, as she points

out, this associates them with the idea of “history as memorialisation” which is not

necessarily a positive thing.56 This is because:

Typically, the school commissioning the history aspires to a celebratory history that can demonstrate and reinforce identity and traditions, rather than to a critical, analytical history that might stimulate controversy or provoke dissent and discord.57

It should be noted that this research project is not limited by the constraints outlined above.

While the VSL does have an interest in this research and have given their full support for this

work, this thesis is entirely independent and can be as critical as necessary.

In the 1990s, the educational historian Campbell criticised the lack of histories of state

schools, in comparison to the great number of school histories written about independent

schools.58 Campbell pointed out that state school histories, rather than being hagiographic

enterprises like their independent school counterparts, “have an important role to play in

future education policy and planning.”59 This thesis will seek to redress the lack of histories of

state schools and also to provide insights into language policy and planning in Victoria.

3.5.7 Narrative and theory in historiography

This thesis is “both a story and a study”60 about the history of the VSL. In Chapters 5, 6 and 7

this thesis will provide the reader with a narrative of the history of the school. The narrative

method has been considered the ideal method for historians for some two thousand years.61

Stone explains, “Narrative is taken to mean the organization of material in a chronologically

sequential order and the focusing of the content into a single coherent story, albeit with sub-

plots.” The sub-plots of this thesis will be guided by the key themes and research questions.

As Stone adds, “The kind of narrative which I have in mind is not that of the simple

56 P Parker, Girls, Empowerment and Education: A History of The Mac.Robertson Girls’ High School 1905–2005, PhD thesis, School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning Portfolio, RMIT University, 1996, p. 9. 57 Ibid. 58 C Campbell, ‘The Social Origins of Australian State High Schools: An Historiographical Review’, in C Campbell, C Hooper and M Fearnley-Sander, Toward the State High School in Australia: Social Histories of State Secondary Schooling in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania 1850–1925, ANZHES, Sydney, 1990, pp. 9-28, p. 10. 59 Quoted in Parker, Girls, Empowerment and Education, 1996, p. 12. 60 Butterfield quoted in Bailyn 1982, p. 7, my emphasis. 61 L Stone, ‘The Revival of Narrative- Reflections on a New Old History’, Past & Present, no. 85, 1979, pp. 3-24, p. 4.


65

antiquarian reporter or annalist. It is narrative directed by some “pregnant principle” and

which possesses a theme and an argument.”62

Burstyn also champions the use of narrative in the writing of history. She explains that

throughout the last half century, historians have debated the value of applying theories

derived from the social sciences or the humanities in their work.63 She warns historians

against blindly following these theories that inevitably will go in and out of fashion.64 Eick

adds that in the field of history of education in the United States, there has been a tendency to

eschew preconceived theories. This is because “The prevalent paradigm argues that the

trustworthiness of historical inquiry, by virtue of being an inductive process, is increased by

the absence of preconceived theory.”65 For this reason, this study evaluated the primary and

secondary source material in an inductive manner, free from preconceived theories, so that it

could be investigated without being burdened by any outside influences.

However, Eick does believe that theoretical frameworks are important. Burstyn also contends

that a balance can indeed be struck between narrative and theory in the writing of history. She

suggests that researchers should first provide the reader with a narrative and use this together

with theoretical analysis.

I believe that theoretical analyses are most useful when they are used in conjunction with strong narrative skills, because unless readers have in mind some knowledge of the story that evolved, they will be unable to grasp the significance of any theory to the particular events of the time.66

Butterfield concurs, stating “Where history is both a story and a study, one may gain a

profounder insight into both the ways of men and the processes of time.”67

3.5.8 Presentation of the narrative

The points outlined above informed the approach that was chosen for this thesis, and for the

way that the data was presented. As a non-traditional school, the VSL’s story is extremely 62 Ibid. 63 JN Burstyn, ‘Narrative versus theoretical approaches: a dilemma for historians of women’, History of Education Review, vol. 19, no. 2, 1990, pp. 1-7, p. 2. 64 Ibid, p. 6. 65 C Eick, ‘Oral Histories of Education and the Relevance of Theory- Claiming New Spaces in a Post-Revisionist Era’, History of Education Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, 2011, pp. 160-183, p. 160. 66 Burstyn 1990, p. 5. 67 Butterfield quoted in Bailyn 1982, p. 7.


66

complex. It involves multiple language communities, many sites on which teaching and

learning took place (known as centres), thousands of students and hundreds of teachers, over

an eighty year time period. It would be erroneous not to first provide the reader with a clear

account of the VSL’s evolution, before embarking on a theoretical interpretation of it. It is for

that reason that in Chapters 4, 5 and 6, the reader is first presented with a narrative of the

school’s history. This was developed in an inductive method, free from the influence of any

preconceived theories. Yet throughout the narrative, it is clear that the school went through a

quest for acceptance and legitimacy, as did its many language communities.

The historical narrative of the VSL’s history is divided into three sections, or periods of time.

Historical methods favour the identification of distinct phases or periods, and this is

particularly useful when researching institutions. Periods can be “useful analytic devices for

imposing a degree of separation on the multiple influences affecting the relative stability of

institutional arrangements at particular moments of time.”68

In keeping with Burstyn’s suggestion, after the presentation of the narrative, theoretical

analysis was then used to further illuminate the narrative.69 The historical narrative was

treated as an artifact, as a text that could be analysed theoretically. For this reason, in

Chapters 4, 5 and 6, there is a theory section that follows the historical narrative. These

sections are theoretical discussions that throw light on the theme of legitimacy. They provide

the reader with a theoretical commentary of the significance of the research questions for

each chapter. In these sections, theory helped to provide a deeper explanation and description

of what has happened. The powerful contribution of theory is that its language has a

descriptive power and it enables a more nuanced way of describing something.70 As will be

explained later in this chapter, a number of specific theories were selected for their capacity

to describe and explain the issues of legitimacy that emerged in each chapter, and to throw

more light on them. Some theories were utilised in all three chapters of 4, 5 and 6, whereas

others were only relevant to one part of the narrative, and therefore utilised in only one of

these chapters.

68 Suddaby and Greenwood 2009, p. 184. 69 Burstyn 1990, p. 5. 70 N Cherry to C Bryant, 12 August 2015.


67

3.6 Data collection

As shown in the graphic, the research design for this thesis depended on the location and the

selection of a set of unique and original qualitative materials about the VSL. This material

was gathered and drawn together from a wide range of sources. The bulk of the data is

primary source material, in the form of archived Education Department documents, which

were largely untapped by historians.

Historians consider the primary source as the core concept of historical research.71 Primary

sources have also been called the “nuts and bolts of history”.72 A primary source is “any

surviving material that is generated or altered in the course or as an outcome of that activity

or provides a context for its occurrence.”73 Such is the level of reverence for the primary

source, that “historians make something of a fetish of a primary source, particularly if

unpublished.”74

The majority of the sources that were used in this study are in fact primary sources. Most of

these are archived documents that are kept at the Public Records Office of Victoria (PROV).

At PROV, the relevant documents that trace the VSL’s origins are contained in the Education

Department Special Case File 1315, dating from 1935 to 1971. This file contains

approximately 1030 documents. PROV explains that the Special Case Files were:

created as a subset to the Education Department’s central policy files. The term ‘special case’ was applied to certain policy areas or individual policy files for various reasons. Such policy files were determined to be special because of their excessive size, their delicate or important subject matter or due to the seniority of staff using the files eg: ministers, directors and their assistants.75

It seems clear that the files relating to the VSL were deemed special because of the latter two

reasons. In the correspondence file, the school’s special relationship with senior Education

Department personnel is evident.

71 Grigg 1991, p. 229. 72 Robyns 2001, p. 364. 73 Grigg 1991, p. 232, emphasis in original. 74 Novick, quoted in Grigg 1991, p. 229. 75 Government of Victoria, ‘Series VPRS 892 Special Case Files: About this series’, 2005. Retrieved 1 March 2013, http://www.access.prov.vic.gov.au/public/component/daPublicBaseContainer?component=daViewSeries&entityId=892.


68

Further primary sources were found on site, in the archives of the VSL itself. Many of these

are internal school communications, policy documents, review documents and

correspondence with the Education Department. This study also made use of many relevant

primary sources kept at the State Library of Victoria. These include the Report from the

Minister of Public Instruction, records of parliamentary debates, the Education Gazette, as

well as newspaper articles. Furthermore, several interview participants generously donated

copies of their personal documents and these included letters, local newspaper articles, school

publications, curriculum materials as well as photographs, all of which are primary sources.

This study also made use of a number of secondary sources. Secondary sources are “the

record or testimony of anyone not an eyewitness to or participant in the event. A secondary

source contains the information from someone else, who may or may not have witnessed the

event”.76 These are valuable because they contain interpretations of other primary and

secondary sources. However, they must also be treated with care and subjected to the same

process of criticism and analysis as other sources. In the case of this study, there are a small

number of secondary sources that document the VSL. These include a small number of

histories written by people associated with the VSL. They also include a small number of

academic papers and unpublished theses. These were outlined in more detail in Chapter 2

Literature Review.

3.6.1 Oral history

The data collection for this study also included the gathering of oral history. While oral

traditions have existed for centuries, it was not until 1948 that oral history began to be used in

earnest by academic historians.77 The term “oral history” refers to the recorded memoir, the

typewritten transcript and the research method that involves in depth interviewing.78 There

are many other terms that can be used interchangeably with oral history. These include life

history, self-report, personal narrative, life story, oral biography, memoir, and testament.79

76 McMillan and Schumacher 2001, p. 509. 77 W Cutler, ‘Oral History: Its Nature and Uses for Educational History’, in History of Education Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 2, 1971, pp. 184-194, p.184. 78 VR Yow, Recording oral history: a guide for the humanities and social sciences, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, 2005, p. 3. 79 Ibid, p. 3.


69

Traditionally, historical narratives that were built on written documents were considered the

most valid. In this view, oral evidence was utilised to “only to add colour, immediacy and

exemplars in a largely uncritical fashion”. 80 Indeed, for some time, oral history was

considered radical.81 Ideas about the usefulness of oral history have since moved along a

continuum, and contemporary historical scholars now consider the oral narrative a main

source of evidence.82 This study will be situated somewhere in the middle of this continuum.

It used largely the same proportion of written and oral sources for investigating the history of

the VSL. Where some periods of time were concerned, this thesis relied more heavily on

written sources. For other periods, where the written sources were scarce, it made use of oral

sources.

Oral history is a valuable methodology because it offers several functions. Not only does it

complement written records, but it can also be used “to link micro- and macrophenomena and

personal life experiences to broader historical circumstances”.83 Furthermore, it has been

claimed that oral history is an ideal way of gathering histories from groups of marginalised

people who would otherwise be absent from the literature.84 This point is particularly relevant

to this study. There are many migrant groups who are involved in the history of the VSL

whose voices rarely appeared in the written archived Education Department documents.

3.6.2 The approach for gathering oral histories

Oral histories were gathered after the Swinburne University of Technology Human Ethics

Committee granted approval to proceed. In total, thirty-six hour-long interviews were

conducted throughout 2013 and 2014. Participants consisted of twenty men and sixteen

women. They included representatives of a broad range of migrant groups and language

backgrounds. Individuals who had a direct experience with the school or with languages

education in Victoria were approached. Some participants could be found readily via word of

mouth. Others were found with the help of several alumni organisations, as explained below.

80 May & Proctor 2013, p. 58. 81 P Hamilton, ‘The knife edge: debates about memory and history’, in K Darian-Smith and P Hamilton (eds), Memory and History in Twentieth Century Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1994, pp. 9-32, p. 14. 82 May and Proctor 2013, p. 58. 83 A Portelli, ‘Oral History: A Collaborative Method of (Auto) Biography Interview’ in S Hesse-Biber & P Leavy, The practice of qualitative research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, 2006, pp. 149-194, p. 153. 84 Ibid, p. 151.


70

The largest group included people who had direct experience working at the VSL. This

included both former and current principals, assistant principals, centre managers, supervisors

and teachers. Several of these were themselves students at the school. In accordance with

ethics guidelines, current VSL employees were required to adopt a pseudonym. Others who

were non-current VSL employees were given the choice to remain anonymous or use their

real name. All interviewees who were given this option chose to use their real name. This is

consistent with the conventions of historiography.

The interviewees also included a small group of students from the 1930s and 1940s. The

school did not have a name or a building during this period, so making contact with these

participants presented a particular challenge. In June 2013, using the archival documents

from Special Case 1315, lists of applicants for additional language study from the three main

metropolitan high schools in Melbourne during that era were reconstructed; Melbourne High

School, MacRobertson Girls’ High School and University High School. The staff in charge of

alumni at those three schools generously donated their time and assisted in contacting these

students. This process yielded five interviews with students who attended the school between

1939 and 1948.

A group of key external stakeholders in the field of languages education in Victoria was also

interviewed. These include academics, as well as representatives from Community

Languages Australia, the Modern Languages Teachers’ Association of Victoria, and the

Department of Education. This broad approach ensured that many viewpoints from both

inside and outside the school were heard. This removed the focus away from the author and

towards the voices of the interviewees.

Prior to the interview, participants were sent a “guide” to the interview questions, which were

broad and open ended. Participants were given the freedom to tell their stories in their own

way, in order to minimise the impact and interference by the interviewer.85 Several ex-staff

members who participated in this study felt very strongly about their time at the VSL. Some

of their responses to the interview questions were emotional and passionate. At times, it was

necessary to omit interview questions or tread carefully during the interview process to avoid 85 M Frisch, A Shared Authority: Essays On The Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1990.


71

unsettling them. The interviews were recorded then transcribed. Transcripts were retained as

a whole narrative, which is in keeping with the oral history approach. The content of the

interviews transcripts was treated in the same way as the written archival materials. It was

subjected to the same process of criticism, analysis and synthesis, as explained above.

Furthermore, it should be noted that members of the general public were not interviewed for

this thesis. Given the constraints of the scope of this research project, and the time and

resources available, it was decided that only individuals who were directly involved with the

school or with languages education in Victoria would be included. This is perhaps an area of

research that could be pursued in the future.

3.7 The Study: The applicability and suitability of particular theories

Soon after embarking on this project, it became clear that there was no theoretical blueprint

upon which this thesis could rely. The dearth of scholarly material about the VSL and about

state specialist language schools meant that this project trod a path that had not been travelled

before. There were no theoretical pillars or lamplights to illuminate the journey and it was

necessary for this project to initiate its own path. In particular, the scholars who had briefly

mentioned the VSL did not examine how or why the VSL managed to become a legitimate

and accepted school.

The question of which scholarly theories to utilise was an iterative, ongoing one which began

at the outset of this project and continued throughout the research process. Historical inquiry

is an inductive approach and because of this, it was not immediately apparent what types of

themes would emerge from the historical analysis. For this reason, it was necessary to

research a number of approaches and then make decisions about the applicability and

suitability of those theories after the historical analysis had been commenced and after the

theme of legitimacy had emerged. The applicability and suitability of particular theories was

continuously being considered, reviewed and revised.

In selecting theories to be utilised, a key criterion was that they needed to be applicable to

more than just a single, discrete segment of the historical narrative. It would not be ideal to

utilise different theories to analyse phenomena in one period of the VSL’s narrative, and


72

other theories for different time periods. In addition, it would not be ideal to use a group of

different theories to illuminate a number of issues or problems. Cobbling together a number

of different theories in that way would have resulted in a piecemeal, patchwork quilt-like

approach. The theories needed to have a more universal, all-encompassing applicability to the

broad issue of educational organisations and the ways that they grow and develop. It was

therefore considered desirable to select theories that were generalised yet focused enough to

elucidate the whole life of the VSL’s history.

In the absence of studies on the history of state specialist language schools, the focus turned

to studies about other types of complementary language schooling. There were theories from

the field of linguistics that were considered because they had been used to analyse

“complementary schools”. Scholars in other countries have researched the socio-political

histories of complementary schools, and they describe complementary schools as “set up in

response to the failure of the mainstream education system to meet the needs of the ethnic

minority children and their communities”.86 Scholars who research these schools focus on the

way that they act as “safe spaces for alternative discourses from dominant mainstream

positions”.87 Others use new social movement theory to explore the way that groups initiate

social transformation.88 In addition, historians of education who research complementary

schooling have identified what Said called communities of effort and interpretation. “These

were communities who came together to supplement and correct perceived weaknesses in

state education.” 89 Although there are certainly elements of these studies that resonate with

some aspects of the VSL, there are fundamental differences. It was decided that these

theoretical approaches would not be appropriate for the analysing the VSL because they are

more applicable to a different cultural setting. Unlike community language schools, the VSL

is a state government initiative and it has always operated under the auspices of the Victorian

education system. In this thesis, the mainstream state education system was not seen as a

failure, or as a weakness, as it is in the studies mentioned above, but rather as a solution.

Because of these critical differences it was decided that these theories would not be suitable.

86 Li 2006, p. 78. 87 Creese and Martin 2006 p. 2. 88 H Mirza and D Reay, ‘Spaces and Places of Black Educational Desire: Rethinking Black Supplementary Schools as a New Social Movement’, Sociology, vol. 34 no. 3, 2000, pp. 521-544, p. 524. 89 Myers and Grosvenor 2011, p. 516.


73

Other theories from the field of linguistics were also considered. For example, Hornberger

used Bakhtin’s theory of voice as an “analytical heuristic”90 to analyse language educational

practice in contexts of sociohistorical and sociolinguistic oppression. Bakhtin’s theory

suggests that society is made up of a diversity of voices, and that it is constructed through the

articulation of these voices.91 In language and education, learners can be seen as engaging in

dialogical struggles for speaking consciousness”.92 Scholars have utilised this theoretical

framing to analyse the voices of policy based discourses as well as the voices of second-

generation language speakers. This approach synthesised several social voices, such as the

voice of inclusion, the voice of pragmatism, and the silent voice of assimilation.93 Initially

this theory seemed relevant to this thesis, yet it soon became apparent that it could not be

used as an all-encompassing approach to investigate the history of the VSL over a long

period of time. It would be more suited to an in depth analysis of discrete segments of the

historical narrative. It would also require access to several “voices” that could provide oral

testimonies that provide interpretations of the same segments of time in the historical

narrative where no oral testimonies could be found. For the early period, no teachers

remained alive and it was difficult to find students who could remember enough. So this

approach was discarded because it could not be used as an overall theoretical framing for this

thesis.

Another theory that was considered was the theory of contested spaces, which came from the

field of education. In education, a contested space is defined as “an educational context where

ideas are shared and action is taken to challenge dominant social, political, or cultural

ideologies that have implications for learning and teaching in schools.”94 At first, this theory

appeared to have the potential to be a suitable construct to help to build an understanding of

the complex language education field in Victoria. It was considered for its capacity to help to

make sense of the competitive and contested nature of the different sectors and providers that

co-exist in Victoria. Yet after some time it became clear that this theory was not the right

90 N Hornberger, ‘Voice and Biliteracy in Indigenous Language Revitalization: Contentious Educational Practices in Quechua, Guarani, and Maori Contexts’, Journal of Language, Identity and Education, vol. 5 no. 4, 2006, pp. 277-292, p. 280. 91 J Winter & A Pauwels, ‘Language Maintenance and the Second Generation: Policies and Practices’ in A Pauwels, J Winter & J Lo Bianco, Maintaining minority languages in transnational contexts, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2007, pp. 180 – 200, p. 181. 92 Hornberger 2006, ‘Voice and Biliteracy in Indigenous Language Revitalization’, p. 284. 93 Winter and Pauwels 2007, p. 181. 94 R Kawai, S Serriere & D Mitra, ‘Contested Spaces of a “Failing” Elementary School’, Theory & Research in Social Education, vol. 42, issue 4, 2014, pp. 486-515, p. 489.


74

choice for this research project because its constructs would be too broad and general and not

focused enough to address the VSL’s growth and development as an organisation.

Theories that have been used by scholars in the field of the history of education were also

considered. These included theories about the material objects of schooling and the

technologies of inclusion and exclusion in the history of education. These theories examine

“The ways in which class and school routines are bound together by objects and actions”.95 It

was considered that this theory could help to examine the relationship between the structures

of the VSL and the mainstream school system and how these structures and sites served to

either include or exclude certain groups or types of students. Another theory that would also

facilitate an analysis of included and excluded students in the history of the VSL is Delpit’s

theory of Other People’s Children.96 These theories were considered but ultimately had to be

discarded because they would only be relevant to the latter half of the school’s history, when

the VSL became a vehicle for language maintenance for migrant children. In the first 30

years, the school did not cater to migrant communities. Like the other theories mentioned

above, these theories had to be discarded because they could not be used as overarching or as

an “all-encompassing” theoretical approaches for explaining the entire story of the school’s

origins, growth and development.

As a result of the inductive process of historical inquiry and analysis, the theme of legitimacy

strongly emerged throughout the narrative. It became clear that this thesis needed to utilise

theoretical constructs that had the capability to explain organisational legitimacy. The ability

to focus on the central theme of legitimacy therefore became the main criteria for the

selection of theory. Scholarly theories that had the capacity to illuminate the way that

educational organisations or certain curriculum areas gain and maintain legitimacy were

selected and adopted. Theories that could not directly inform the issue of legitimacy in

educational settings had to be rejected.

95 M Lawn and I Grosvenor, ‘Introduction. The Materiality of Schooling’, in M Lawn and I Grosvenor, Materialities of schooling: design, technology, objects, routines, Symposium Books, Oxford, 2005, pp. 7-18, p. 13. 96 LD Delpit, Other people's children: cultural conflict in the classroom, [Rev. ed.], New Press, New York, 2006.


75

3.7.1 Organisations and their claims for legitimacy

The first theory that appeared to be highly relevant to this study came from the work of the

sociologists Meyer and Rowan, who in the field of organisational studies, developed theories

about the ways in which organisations gain legitimacy and improve their prospects for

survival.97 This theory was selected and adopted because it could illuminate the way that the

VSL attempted to challenge its position on the fringes of the education system and gain

legitimacy. As mentioned above, the issue of legitimacy emerged as a strong central theme

and is highly relevant to the history of the VSL. This theory was selected and adopted

because it was broad enough to be able to address the VSL’s quest for legitimacy right

throughout its eighty-year time frame.

Meyer and Rowan explain that organisational structures arise in highly institutionalised

contexts. By institutionalised contexts, they refer to:

widespread understandings of social reality. Many of the positions, policies, programs and procedures of modern organizations are enforced by public opinion, by the views of important constituents, by knowledge legitimated through the educational system, by social prestige… Such elements of formal structure are manifestations of powerful institutional rules which function as highly rationalized myths that are binding on particular organizations. 98

The fact that this theory is based on the idea of external institutional contexts is another

reason why it was chosen for this thesis. Looking at the VSL through this lens allowed a

closer examination of the changing approaches to language education in this country and to

consider the ways these contexts have impacted on the school. This approach heeds Selleck’s

advice about analysing school histories in relation to the “broad social, political and

economic gales which buffet the rest of society”.99 Adopting Meyer and Rowan’s theory

allows this study to include an analysis of the contextual influences of Australia’s changing

approaches to languages and multilingualism and the role of these in the VSL’s quest for

legitimacy.

Meyer and Rowan assert that these institutional rules have an enormous impact on

organisations, and that organisations are compelled to incorporate these elements into their

operations in order to gain legitimacy and to increase their prospects for survival. 97 Meyer and Rowan 1977. 98 Ibid, p. 343. 99 Selleck in Theobald 1978.


76

Organisations are heavily influenced by their respective institutionalised contexts and

inevitably, they must reflect and parallel them.100 Organisations that fail to incorporate these

“building blocks” risk illegitimacy, because it is these institutional rules that are “are

considered proper, adequate, rational and necessary.”101 An organisation depends on its

ability to incorporate these external institutional contexts. Doing so “reduces turbulence and

maintains stability. As a result… institutional isomorphism promotes the success and survival

of organizations.”102 In order to achieve status, resources and financial support, it is necessary

for an institution to be connected to this wider institutional system. However, a certain degree

of conformity is necessary. Goodson and Anstead believe that this can lead innovative

institutions to regress and conform to the categorical norm.103

In order to demonstrate that they conform to external institutional contexts, organisations

employ several methods. One is for an organisation to evolve institutional language.104 Other

methods include the adoption of external criteria of worth. 105 Significantly, it is an

organisation’s adherence to these external institutionalised rules, rather than its internal day-

to-day work activities, which is most critical to its success and survival.106 This is especially

true of educational organisations, which tend not to tightly co-ordinate, control or inspect the

instructional activities going on within their classrooms.107

Meyer’s theories apply to schools and educational institutions in the following ways:

The power of any given school or educational organization arises principally from its linkages to the bottom nine-tenths of the educational iceberg – the institutional structure of education. The main problem for the administrator, if learning and participation are to be sustained, is to clearly link a particular educational organization or program to this wider institutional system. The school must be wholly accredited in everyone’s eyes, or commitment and resources will rapidly decline. Ideally, it should be accredited as properly within a nationwide category of schools of general meaning and substantial allocation of power – for example, it is better to be a general high school than a vocational school, and so on. Much organizational

100 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 346. 101 Ibid, p. 345. 102 Ibid, p. 349. 103 I Goodson C & Anstead, The Life of a School: A Research Guide, Peter Lang, New York, 2012, p. 103. 104 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 349. 105 Ibid, p. 350. 106 Ibid, p. 346. 107 J Meyer and B Rowan, ‘The Structure of Educational Organizations’, in Marshall Meyer and Associates, Environments and Organizations: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, Jossey-Bass Publishers, SanFrancisco, 1978, pp. 78-109, p. 79.


77

activity must be devoted to maintaining institutional legitimacy. A stock of properly credentialed teachers is necessary, along with approved facilities and students who are themselves appropriately defined and credentialed.108

The theories of Meyer and Rowan were used in Chapter 4 Special Classes in languages 1935-

1965 and Chapter 5 Growth and the journey towards recognition 1966-1987, to analyse the

means by which the VSL attempted to stake its claim as a legitimate and valid educational

institution. Utilising this theory facilitated an analysis of the developments at the school

against the backdrop of Australia’s changing institutional rules in regard to language

education. Even though it was not an official state school, these theories suggest that as early

as 1935, the school strived to conform to many of the key institutional categories that Meyer

and Rowan articulate as key elements to achieving legitimacy. This analysis suggests that the

school’s conformity with these categories was a critical factor in the VSL’s eventual official

recognition as a Victorian state school in 1988.

Meyer and Rowan’s theory was also useful in Chapter 6 The Victorian School of Languages

1988-1994. In this chapter, it was used to help explore the complexities of events after the

school’s formalisation in 1988. This period in the school’s history coincided with the erosion

of several key external institutional contexts in the landscape of languages education. During

the period from the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, language policy was increasingly

influenced by economic rationalism, and this spelled uncertainty for the VSL’s security in its

status and its prospects for survival. It must be said, however, that there were some aspects of

the VSL’s history that could not be fully explained by this theory. These problems and

limitations will be discussed later in the thesis.

3.7.2 The Organizational Saga

The second theoretical approach that was selected and adopted came from the discipline of

educational sociology. Many historians who have researched the history and the development

of particular educational institutions have utilised the theory of the Organizational Saga.109

This theory came from the work of the educational sociologist, Clark. He argued that

108 J Meyer, ‘Levels of the Educational System and Schooling Effects’, in D Windham and C Bidwell, Issues in Macroanalysis, Ballinger Pub. Co, Cambridge, MA, 1980, pp. 15-63, p. 48. 109 Clark 1972.


78

Organizational Sagas could be found in non-conformist institutions that have no established

structure.110 This key construct was one of the reasons why this theory was selected. The

VSL is undoubtedly a non-conformist institution, and it could be used to help to explain the

development of such an unusual school. This theory was also relevant to the history of the

VSL because it also helps to illuminate the emotional aspects of institutions, not simply the

formal structures.111

The Organizational Saga describes “a collective understanding of unique accomplishment in

a formally established group”112 and “refers to a unified set of publicly expressed beliefs

about the formal group that (a) is rooted in history, (b) claims unique accomplishment, and

(c) is held with sentiment by the group.”113 The sagas that circulate among employees

strengthen the feeling of collegiality within the institution and are used as a means of self-

management.114

Clark’s theory was also selected was because it helps to explain “a narrative of heroic

exploits, of a unique development that has deeply stirred the emotions of participants and

descendants”.115 This particular aspect of Clark’s theory was considered attractive because it

had the capacity to illuminate the way that the school’s staff worked together towards the

realisation of a shared goal. This theory was used in Chapter 5 Growth and the journey

towards recognition 1966-1987. In this period, led by Principal Joe Abiuso, a group of

teachers at the school banded together and lobbied the State government to have the school

upgraded and recognised as an official Victorian state school. Their struggle for legitimacy

was a long and difficult one, and passionate accounts of these events featured prominently in

several oral histories and written accounts of the school’s history. The Organizational Saga

was used in this instance to shed light on the actions and the motivations of the individuals

concerned, and to explain the special bond that staff felt. Clark’s theory also helped to

illuminate the strong narrative that staff were working “against the odds” and working against

the mainstream during this time of upheaval.

110 Ibid, p. 180. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid, p. 178. 113 Ibid, p. 179. 114 B Czarniawska, 'Narrative Inquiry in and About Organizations', in D Clandinin (ed.), Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, California, 2007, pp. 383-405, p. 384. 115 Clark 1972, p. 178.


79

Curiously, some elements of this narrative continued throughout the next phase of the

school’s history, even though the school had achieved its official status. Clark’s theory of the

Organizational Saga was therefore also used in Chapter 6 The Victorian School of Languages

1988-1994. During this time, the school was subjected to several reviews by the Education

Department, and the narrative that the school was still working “against the odds” continued

to feature in oral testimonies and written materials. Clark’s theory was again used in this

chapter to explore these issues and to shed light on the emotional aspects of the school’s

developments. While Clark’s theory was useful for illuminating many aspects of the

emotional side of the VSL’s struggles for legitimacy, there were some elements that it could

not explain. In this respect, this theory had its limitations for explaining the VSL’s story. The

shortcomings of this theory will be explored in detail later in this thesis.

3.7.3 Heritage language subjects and their claims for legitimacy

A third theory that was selected for this study is the idea developed by linguists Mercurio and

Scarino.116 This idea is that heritage language subjects claim and maintain legitimacy through

a process called “grafting”. This idea was selected primarily because of its applicability to the

field of language education but also because of the many heritage language subjects that

sought to achieve legitimacy through their association with the VSL.

It must be acknowledged that issues relating to heritage language subjects are not relevant to

the early part of the VSL story. In the first 30 years, the school did not teach “heritage

language” subjects. For this reason, Mercurio and Scarino’s ideas could not be utilised to help

to illuminate the school’s origins. Their ideas are more applicable and relevant to the VSL’s

history from about the 1970s onwards. But this idea was still chosen because it had the strong

capacity to help explain the core issue of legitimacy in relation to language subjects and the

process that was involved in gaining and maintaining legitimacy as a curriculum area.

The most relevant construct of this idea is Mercurio and Scarino’s argument that heritage

language subjects gain crucial status and legitimacy by grafting themselves onto existing

structures in the education system. This was an important idea that was used in two chapters

that deal with the school’s history; namely Chapter 5 Growth and the journey towards

116 Mercurio & Scarino 2005.


80

recognition 1966-1987 and Chapter 6 The Victorian School of Languages 1988-1994. It was

used as a way to illuminate the complexities of the processes and struggles that heritage

language subjects went through in order to secure a place at the VSL, and thereby securing

themselves a place in the official education system. Using this idea helped to analyse real life

examples of how these processes were played out in relation to the VSL. Mercurio and

Scarino’s ideas are important because they highlight the key theme of legitimacy at the

curriculum level. Furthermore, these ideas complement Meyer and Rowan’s theory about the

gaining and maintaining of legitimacy on an organisational level.

While Mercurio and Scarino’s ideas were useful for exploring some aspects of the ways that

heritage languages managed to find legitimacy in Victoria through their association with the

VSL, this idea had its limitations. There were certain aspects of the process of gaining

legitimacy that could not be explained through the utilisation of these ideas. These limitations

and problems will be discussed in greater detail towards the end of the thesis.

3.8 Findings and contribution to knowledge

As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the combined approach of historical inquiry and theoretical

analysis produced this study’s findings and its contribution to knowledge. This study will be

the first to examine the issues surrounding the VSL’s quest for legitimacy throughout its

history. It will also be the first study to interrogate key issues in the VSL’s historical narrative

by utilising the theories of Meyer and Clark, and the ideas of Mercurio and Scarino. Using

historical analysis together with these theories and ideas illuminated the ways that the school

and its language communities managed to gain legitimacy in the Victorian education system.

In conducting this study in the approach outlined above, this thesis aimed to redress the

VSL’s absence from the “grand narrative” of the history of education in Australia. It aimed to

provide a first scholarly analysis of key issues in the VSL’s history and development. It is

intended to contribute to building a more whole and complete literature that includes an

analysis of the VSL, which is one of the key providers of language provision in Victoria.

Chapter 4. Beginnings: Special classes in languages 1935-1965

81


4.1 Introduction

This chapter is the first of three to present a narrative of the history of the VSL. It is divided

into three sections. Section one presents a brief historical overview of the development of

language education in Victoria prior to 1935. It sets the context for section two, which is a

chronological narrative, starting with the school’s origins in 1935, and ending in 1964.

Section three uses relevant theories as a lens, as a way to interpret the issues presented in the

narrative. Using theory in this way provides a means to analyse the issues surrounding

legitimacy that arose during this part of the VSL’s history.

Section 1. Historical context of language education in Victoria

4.1.1 Languages in Australia prior to 1900

It is believed that prior to European settlement, there were some 250 indigenous languages

and 600 dialects spoken in Australia. Since European settlement, about two-thirds of these

“pre-contact” languages have either become extinct or are on the verge of extinction.1 During

the nineteenth century, when Australia still consisted of separately governed colonies, there

were no explicit policies on languages. Attitudes towards languages varied among the

colonies.2 However in general, there was a “non-discriminatory laissez-faire policy”.3 During

this period, languages were taught widely in both primary and secondary schools, with

French, Latin, German and sometimes Italian offered.4 Policies at this time were primarily

concerned with intellectual development, as opposed to the development of an ability to

communicate. In fact, the history of language in education policy in this country has been

characterised by a constant movement between these two views.5

1 Lo Bianco, 2003, p. 13. 2 Clyne 1991, p. 6. 3 Ibid, p. 11. 4 Ibid, p. 10. 5 Liddicoat 2013, p. 30.


82

In the middle of the nineteenth century, gold rushes attracted many thousands of Chinese to

the Victorian goldfields. This struck fear into Australians and it had a defining impact on the

country’s immigration policy, which still remained more than a century later.6 The gold rush

period also had an indirect effect on the education system. With the influx of population and

wealth to the colonies, the first universities were established. Sydney University was

established in 1850 and the University of Melbourne in 1853. The new universities had a vital

impact on the study of classical languages because these subjects were important for

matriculation. Furthermore, the existence of the universities brought about a need for more

ambitious schooling that would be provided by grammar schools. The teaching of Latin and

Classical Greek in Victoria coincided with the foundation of schools such as Geelong

Grammar in 1857 and Melbourne Grammar in 1858.7 But the maintenance of Latin and

Classical Greek faced constant difficulties.8 Social mobility was not dependent upon

university study for many people and these subjects were widely considered to be elitist.9

With the large number of first generation immigrants in Australia at that time, many

community languages thrived. By the 1860s, these included “Irish, Chinese, German, Gaelic,

Welsh French, the Scandinavian languages, and Italian.”10 There were rural communities in

which languages such as German or Gaelic were spoken at church, at work and at school.

Bilingual schools in both rural and urban communities were not uncommon. Out of hours

bilingual schools were even established during this time, to cater for the second generation.

One of the first to be set up was a German Saturday school in Mill Park in Melbourne in

1857.11 It is also believed that the first Jewish school teaching Hebrew was established in

1865.12 Furthermore, in the second half of the nineteenth century, newspapers in languages

such as German, “Chinese, French, Gaelic, Scandinavian and Welsh” 13 were widely

published. It should be noted that this openness did not include indigenous languages, which

were tolerated, neglected or worse, repressed.14

6 Jupp 2002, p. 7. 7 Barcan 1993, p. 36. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid, p. 37. 10 Clyne 1991, p. 7. 11 Ibid, p. 11. 12 Norst 1982, p. 10. 13 Clyne 1991, p. 8. 14 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 18.


83

In 1862, funding for Victorian government schools was cut to such an extent that they barely

survived. Only a decade later, the Education Act of 1872 reversed this decision and a fully

secular school system was established in Victoria. The Act established compulsory

attendance and free tuition. State aid to elementary schools of religious denominations was

withdrawn, and most disappeared, except those run by the Lutherans and the Catholics.15

This had dramatic consequences for the status of languages other than English. With the

passing of the Education Acts, mainstream state education was introduced, and it was free

and secular. This meant that “the monolingual state school was declared mainstream”.16

Many of the bilingual schools, which were religiously affiliated, were marginalized. In order

to survive, they had to become private schools, and many were forced to close. From the

1880s, the multiculturalism and multilingualism that Australia had started to develop was

declining. In its place, Australia started to become dominated by monolingual English

speakers.17

4.1.2 The “White Australia” policy

Australia’s attitudes towards languages took another turn with its first explicit immigration

policy. From the 1880s, state controlled immigration restriction became known as the “White

Australia” policy. With the foundation of the Commonwealth in 1901, the new government

immediately passed the Immigration Restriction Act. This remained in place until 1958 when

it was replaced by the Migration Act. Its official name, the Immigration Restriction Act,

deliberately avoided any hints of racial discrimination. But this was a measured obfuscation

that was designed to satisfy the British government, because its approval was necessary for

the passing of the Australian Constitution. By this time, the majority of the subjects of the

British Empire were Indian or Africans. The infamous dictation test, therefore, became the

strategic instrument in restricting “coloured” immigrants. Officers were authorised to

administer a dictation test of 500 words to immigrants upon arrival. It was not explicitly

articulated but it was widely understood that the language of the test should be one that was

not known to the immigrant.18

15 H Proctor and C Campbell, A History of Australian Schooling, Allen & Unwin, New South Wales, 2014, p. 77-78. 16 Clyne 1991, p. 11. 17 Ibid, p. 12. 18 Jupp 2002, p. 8-9.


84

4.1.3 Attitudes towards languages in the early twentieth century

In terms of Australia’s attitudes towards languages, the early part of the twentieth century is a

phase that has been characterised as “Britishism”. This period saw attitudes become

hardened.19 When the colonies were consolidated into the Commonwealth of Australia in

1901, Australia sought to strengthen its economic position and establish its identity. In the

same year that Australia introduced the Immigration Restriction Act, ideologies concerning

language and race were brought to light.20

Despite the existence of the “White Australia” policy, there were small concentrations of

migrant groups living in Australia. In the early 1920s, America tightened its immigration

restrictions, resulting in greater numbers of Italians deciding to settle in Australia. In 1922,

there were 8,000 Italian nationals residing in Australia and 700 of them were living in

Melbourne.21 It was common at this time for community languages to be regarded with

suspicion. Mainstream opinion regarding indigenous languages was that they would

inevitably die out. In regard to English, Australia sought to replicate the southern British form

of the language, with teachers, clergy and the media setting the standard.22

4.1.4 The education system in Victoria in the early twentieth century

The preoccupation with English and monolingualism was reinforced by the education system.

The Victorian Director of Education, Frank Tate had been instrumental in passing an

Education Act that saw the establishment of state secondary schools. “Frank Tate… now

wanted children to be ‘Australianized’ through the monolingual/monocultural state school”.23

This was a highly contested move as he faced strong opposition from private schools who

saw an extension of secular secondary education as a direct threat.24 Until that time,

19 Lo Bianco 2003, p. 15-16. 20 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 18. 21 AJC Mayne & Dante Alighieri Society (Australia), Melbourne Branch, Reluctant Italians?: One hundred years of the Dante Alighieri Society in Melbourne 1896-1996, Dante Alighieri Society, Melbourne, 1997, p. 52. 22 Lo Bianco 2003, p. 16. 23 Clyne 1991, p. 13. 24 W Hannan, The Best of Times: The Story of the Great Secondary Schooling Expansion, Lexus Publishing, Northcote, Victoria, 2009, p. 15.


85

secondary schooling had been the domain of a small number of private church and grammar

schools.

The first state secondary school to be established was the Melbourne Continuation School

(later to become Melbourne High School), which was founded in 1905.25 However, most

children who attended public primary schools did not continue on to an academic high

school.26 Around this time, the school leaving age was raised to fourteen.27 Few children

remained at school beyond the compulsory years.28 From 1915, government scholarships

were introduced and they were available for students attending the new state high schools.29

This provided new opportunities to climb the rungs of the educational ladder and they were

now based on merit.30 Full secondary schooling, however, was still only a reality for a

minority of children.31 Even if a scholarship was offered, children from poor families were

sometimes excluded due to the high costs of uniforms and books.32

4.1.5 Languages other than English during the great depression and the war years

Between 1910 and 1914, the study of Latin was at its peak. Entrance to the university still

required students to matriculate in Latin and many students studied it.33 “The social function

of Latin was to help identify the upper ranks of society and the three learned professions

[medicine, law and the church]”.34 However, with a broadening of the academic secondary

curriculum, Latin and Classical Greek became less central. It now included other subjects

such as English, Mathematics, Science and History, and these were considered more

accessible.35

During World War I, Australia’s negative attitudes to languages other than English became

more explicit. During this time, “English only” laws were enacted in many Australian states.

25 Proctor and Campbell 2014, p. 114. 26 Ibid, p. 154. 27 Ibid, p. 123. 28 Ibid, p. 142. 29 Ibid, p. 130. 30 Ibid, p. 138. 31 Ibid, p. 142. 32 W Lowenstein, Weevils in the Flour: an oral record of the 1930’s depression in Australia, Hyland House, Melbourne, 1978, p. 233. 33 Barcan 1993, p. 40. 34 Ibid, p. 45. 35 Ibid, p. 40.


86

These laws prohibited the use of languages other than English as a medium of instruction in

state schools.36 A result of this policy was that any remaining bilingual schools were either

forced to close or compelled to switch to instruction in English. The German language was

considered especially undesirable. Laws were enacted that prohibited publication in

German.37 By 1919, Australian national identity had clearly been defined along English

monolingual lines. The interwar years were a period of “aggressive monolingualism” in

Australia.38 During this period, “repressive policies applied uniformly to both immigrant and

Indigenous minorities”.39

By the time Frank Tate retired in 1928, there were some thirty-six high schools in Victoria

and many others offering different kinds of education.40 Educationists in the public school

sector around the 1930s and 40s were preoccupied with the idea of providing the right

educational “fit” for students.41 The Victorian education system was not unlike a ladder. A

student’s progress up the ladder was regulated by the system of external examinations. There

were three types of state secondary schools, and these were academic, which led to the

University; technical, leading to the technical college; or post primary or higher elementary,

which were for non-academic students.42 Central schools and rural schools in the country

were established.43 Gendered curricula also emerged, including technical schools for boys as

well as domestic science schools for girls.44 By the beginning of World War two, three-

quarters of Australian children attended a government school.45

The slogan “populate or perish” was first coined by Billy Hughes in 1937 after Australia had

lost a large proportion of its population in the First World War.46 During the interwar years,

and the years of the Second World War, negative policies and attitudes to languages other

than English not only persisted, but in fact worsened. People were abused for speaking in

36 Clyne 1991, p. 12-13, Smolicz and Secombe 2003, p. 7. 37 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 19. 38 Clyne 1991, p. 14- 15. 39 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 19. 40 Hannan 2009, p. 15. 41 Proctor and Campbell 2014, p. 154. 42 A Barcan, ‘The Transition in Australian Education 1939-67’, in J Cleverley and J Lawry, Australian Education in the Twentieth Century: Studies in the Development of State Education, Longman, Camberwell, Victoria, 1972, pp. 171-204, p. 171. 43 Proctor and Campbell 2014, p. 146. 44 Ibid, p. 119. 45 Ibid, p. 167. 46 Jupp 2002, p. 11.


87

their community languages in the street.47 In the case of German, its prohibition caused many

community members to switch to English as their usual mode of communication (language

shift). The interwar period and the years of the Second World War also saw the decline of a

once flourishing community language media. Non-English newspapers were forced to cease

publication and Australian radio broadcasted entirely in English. “Thus the pattern of

aggressive monolingualism was set for the decades to come”.48

4.1.6 Language education in the school system in 1935

The number of languages offered in mainstream schools was restricted by the system in place

for examinations. For a language to be offered for examination at matriculation level, there

needed to be a university department that was willing and able to take on the responsibility of

setting and assessing those examinations.49 These restrictions continued until the 1970s when

the universities surrendered control of public examinations.50

In 1935, there were four languages that were offered for examination at both junior and

senior levels in Australian schools. These were Latin, Classical Greek, French and German.

Western Australia appeared to be more innovative than the other states, as it was the only

state to offer Italian and Spanish. Victoria was the only state to offer Hebrew.51 New South

Wales was the only state to make any provision for Japanese.52

In Victoria and several other states, secondary schools offered a variety of courses. The most

academic and rigorous of these was the Two-Language Course, followed by the One-

Language Course, The Domestic Course and the Technical Course, the latter two not

requiring students to study a language.53 In 1935, language study was very much a defining

decision in a student’s secondary education. Because of this, the status of language education

during this time was very high. In all states, matriculation requirements for most university

47 Clyne 1991, p. 15. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid, p. 17. 50 Ibid, p. 217. 51 J Seitz, ‘Types of Curricula of Secondary Schools’, in PR Cole & Australian Council for Educational Research (eds), The Education of the adolescent in Australia, Melbourne University Press in association with Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1935, pp. 100-200, p. 105 – 107. 52 Ibid, p. 115. 53 Ibid, p. 153 – 155.


88

courses required applicants to have passed at least one language study. In some cases, such as

Law, all universities in all states required students to have passed senior Latin.54

In the interwar years, languages fell into two categories; classical languages (Latin and

Classical Greek, and also Hebrew in the case of Victoria) and modern languages (French and

German). It was still widely believed that the study of Latin in particular provided learners

with valuable “training of the mind”.55 Latin was particularly powerful for the way that it

stratified high achieving students into a clearly identifiable group within the academic

curriculum of high schools.56

Pedagogical practices at that time depended upon the type of language that was being taught.

For the classical languages, students learned the rules of syntax and grammar, and the

examination required them to produce sight translations and prepare lines of prose such as

Caesar or Cicero for Latin, and Xenophon or Aristophanes for Classical Greek.57 For the

modern languages, there was more of an emphasis on speaking. In the classroom, students

were drilled in phonetics, dictation and reading aloud. For the examinations, students were

expected to produce a sight translation and answer questions on syntax and grammar. In some

states, depending on the level, students were tested in dictation, reading, free composition and

conversation.58

During this time, educationists believed that Australian students were at a disadvantage

because of the country’s geographical isolation. To solve these difficulties, some suggested

the use of technology in the classroom, namely the gramophone, which would enable schools

to deliver international broadcasts. “[I]n the near future, broadcast lessons given by foreign

teachers from the capital cities of their own countries in their own tongues will be heard by

millions of listeners all over the world who wish to learn a foreign language.”59 These

54 Ibid, p. 112. 55 J Darling, ‘Current Problems in Secondary Education’, in PR Cole & Australian Council for Educational Research (eds), The Education of the adolescent in Australia, Melbourne University Press in association with Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1935, pp. 320–339, p. 334. 56 May and Proctor 2013, p. 61. 57 Seitz 1935, p. 166. 58 Ibid, p. 166-167. 59 R Cameron, ‘The Activities Which the Curriculum Entails’ in PR Cole & Australian Council for Educational Research (eds), The Education of the adolescent in Australia, Melbourne University Press in association with Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1935, pp. 201-227, p. 215.


89

statements reinforce the image of Australia as a far-flung colonial outpost that yearned for

stronger links with Europe.

Section 2: Beginnings

4.2.1 The special experiment of 1935

During the period beginning in 1935, the Victorian School of Languages did not have a name.

It was unofficially referred to as the “special experiment”. After a few years, it was simply

called “Special classes in languages” or “Saturday classes in languages”.

4.2.2 The establishment of Japanese

The Victorian Education Department commenced Japanese classes on Saturday mornings at

MacRobertson Girls’ High School in 1935. Unfortunately, the archived materials found in

Special Case File 1315, which document the history of the classes, do not include any papers

or letters about the establishment of Japanese. It can be speculated that they were either

misplaced or discarded. It is only through newspaper reports that the origins of the Japanese

classes can be pieced together. It was reported that the idea for the classes first came from Mr

Moshi Inagaki, the teacher of Japanese at the University of Melbourne, in 1934.60 The classes

were advertised in The Age newspaper at the start of the 1935 school year. The classes were

taught by Miss Irene Catherine Ryan, an Education Department teacher of French from

Williamstown High School. The advertisement stated:

There should be quite a number of children who should be capable of taking advantage of this course, for it is an innovation that should appeal very strongly to those who have a flair for learning languages. Japan is our nearest powerful neighbor, with whom we hope to build up a reciprocal trade. Therefore, it behoves us to learn something about her language, and her habits and customs.61

60 ‘Nippon comes to Melbourne’, The Herald, 25 July 1936, p. 29. 61 ‘Among the schools. Mac.Robertson Girls’ High School – Teaching of Japanese’, The Age, 12 February 1935, p. 6.


90

The exact date of the first Japanese class is unknown. But by August, The Argus reported that

Japanese was a popular language for Melbourne students, with more than 50 students

enrolling.62

The reason for their introduction was as a “special experiment”: “it was thought that Japanese

(and later Italian) would eventually be introduced into the curriculum of one or two

metropolitan high schools”.63 MacRobertson Girls’ High School was chosen as the venue for

the classes because it had a reputation for academic excellence. It was the only government

academic high school for Victorian girls at the time and in late 1934, the school had just

moved into its purpose built premises at Albert Park.64

This event was an important step for languages education because Japanese was not being

taught in any Victorian government schools at that time. Trade relationships had existed

between Japan and Australia since the 1860s and there was a constant, albeit small presence

of Japanese migrants in Australia. In 1901 when the White Australia Policy had come into

effect, there were about 3600 Japanese nationals living in Australia.65 The 1911 census

showed that the majority of the Japanese population was engaged in either the sugar cane or

pearling industries. Ninety percent of them were residing in the north of Australia.66

Therefore the introduction of the Japanese language into the Victorian state school

curriculum could not be warranted on account of its tiny migrant population.67

Around the 1930s, however, there was a growing interest in all things Japanese among

Australians.68 Furthermore, Australia’s relationship with Japan was growing stronger, adding

to the push for Japanese language instruction. As suggested by The Age newspaper, there was

a belief that Victorian children needed to develop an understanding of the language and

customs of this powerful trading partner.69 Victoria seemed to be lagging behind the other

62 ‘Study of languages: Italian and Japanese: Large enrolments reported’, The Argus, 7 August 1935, p. 8. 63 L Ottaway, 2 February 1940, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 64 Parker, Girls, Empowerment and Education, 1996. 65 S Wilson, ‘Japanese-Australian Relations’, in G Davison, S Macintyre & J Hirst, The Oxford companion to Australian history, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, 1998, pp. 355-357. 66 Lo Bianco and Aliani 2013, p. 50. 67 F Klarberg, ‘Asian languages in Australia: the accreditation of Japanese and Malay as public examination subjects 1918–41’, Asian Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 3, 1997, pp. 79-90, p. 82. 68 Merlino 1988, p. 10. 69 ‘Among the schools. Mac.Robertson Girls’ High School – Teaching of Japanese’, The Age, 12 February 1935, p. 6.


91

states in Japanese language education. Japanese was taught at The University of Sydney from

1907 and it was taught at several high schools in Sydney from 1918.70

Up until then, in Melbourne, Japanese had only been taught privately, by Inagaki. He played

a pioneering role in establishing Japanese language education in Victoria and this has been

researched by several historians. 71 Several of his private students were high profile

individuals, namely E.L. Piesse, the Director of Military Intelligence. It was with Piesse’s

recommendation that Inagaki successfully applied for the position of Reader at the University

of Melbourne in 1921.72 Yet Inagaki’s Japanese program only existed on the fringes of the

university and it was not widely accepted. It was only offered as an extra subject and did not

belong to any faculty. 73 Despite this, and being paid very little, Inagaki worked

enthusiastically to promote Japanese.74

When the Saturday Japanese classes began in 1935 at MacRobertson Girls’ High School, they

were delivered by two Education Department teachers. They had both studied Japanese under

Inagaki at the University, and Inagaki had “general control of the course”.75 Along with Miss

Irene Ryan from Williamstown High School was Miss Amelia Pittman from Sandringham

Primary School.76 In 1935, in the second year of a teaching career that would span more than

24 years, the Inspector described Ryan as “A very earnest and hardworking teacher… [She]

has undertaken the teaching of Japanese with a good measure of success.”77

70 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009 p. 21, Klarberg 1997, p. 83. 71 See AGT Zainu'ddin, ‘Rose Inagaki: “Is It a Crime to Marry a Foreigner?”, in M Lake and F Kelly (eds), Double Time: Women in Victoria - 150 Years, Penguin Books, Ringwood, Victoria, 1985, pp. 335-343, Zainu'ddin 1988, Y Nagata, ‘Naive Patriotism: the internment of Moshi Inagaki in Australia during the Second World War’, in J Beaumont, I Martinuzzi O'Brien and M Trinca (eds), Under Suspicion: Citizenship and Internment in Australia during the Second World War, National Museum of Australia Press, Canberra, 2008, pp. 112-124, Oliver, P, ‘Japanese’, eMelbourne: The city past and present, published by School of Historical Studies Department of History, The University of Melbourne, 2008. Retrieved 27 May 2014, http://www.emelbourne.net.au/biogs/EM00771b.htm. 72 Zainu’ddin 1988, p. 49. 73 Zainu’ddin 1985, p. 339. 74 Zainu’ddin 1988, p. 50. 75 ‘Study of languages: Italian and Japanese: Large enrolments reported’, The Argus, 7 August 1935, p. 8. 76 L Ottaway, 14 February 1938, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 77 Teacher record of Irene Catherine Ryan, VPRS 13718.


92

4.2.3 Key personnel: J.A. Seitz

Some suggest that the establishment of the Saturday classes was primarily the result of the

decisions and actions of individuals rather than deliberate policy or strategy. 78 It is clear that

Inagaki, who was ambitious for the field of Japanese studies to be expanded in Victoria, was

a key player in the establishment of Japanese at the Saturday classes. Another key individual

involved was the Chief Inspector of Secondary Schools, John Arnold Seitz. A distinguished

educationist, and an Australian Rhodes scholar with Swiss heritage, Seitz had taught at

Scotch College in Melbourne and had been Headmaster of Hamilton College, before joining

the Victorian Department of Education and then becoming lecturer at Melbourne Teacher’s

College.79 It has been said that Seitz had enjoyed a “meteoric rise” within the Education

Department.80 Others suggest that his career was not characterised by any outstanding

achievements.81 As will be demonstrated, however, Seitz played a critical role in establishing

and supporting the Saturday classes, and this can be considered an achievement.

In the 1930s, when Seitz was appointed Chief Inspector of Secondary Schools, a widespread

educational malaise saw a stagnation in high school education in Victoria. This was due to

the depression and the war. In addition, this was a period in which the conservative Country

Party was in power in Victoria, which led to friction between teachers and the government.82

This stagnation frustrated Seitz, who, when addressing a 1946 teachers’ conference in

Horsham, declared that “People fail to fully recognise the all importance of education in the

community” and that “Australians seemed firstly to be interested in cigarettes and beer; then

the winner of the next hurdle race; thirdly, any easy way of making money, and lastly,

education”, adding that “Such a state of affairs is deplorable.”83 Seitz was a passionate

exponent for the value of education and had high hopes for the education of Victorian

children.

In P.R. Cole’s 1935 book The Education of the adolescent in Australia, Seitz and other

leading educationists in Victoria discussed the merits of expanding the language curriculum. 78 Mascitelli & Merlino 2011, p. 41. 79 A Spaull, ‘Seitz, John Arnold (1883–1963)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published in hardcopy 1988. Retrieved 26 May 2014, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/seitz-john-arnold-8382/text14715. 80 R Selleck, Frank Tate: a biography, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria, 1982, p. 269. 81 Spaull, 1988. 82 Ibid. 83 ‘Public apathetic towards education’, The Horsham Times, 18 October 1946, p. 2.


93

Seitz noted the innovation in Western Australian government secondary schools to offer

Italian and Spanish.84 On the topic of Japanese, he wrote: “It is remarkable that no other State

other than New South Wales makes any provision for Japanese”.85 On the value of Japanese,

J.R. Darling, the Headmaster of Geelong Grammar School, agreed with Seitz, and also

argued for Italian, when he stated: “It is perfectly possible to make out an excellent case for

the inclusion in a general curriculum of… Latin and Greek; French, German, Spanish, Italian

and Japanese at least of Eastern Languages.”86 It can be surmised that the establishment of

the “special experiment” of the Saturday language classes came as a response to these

discussions about expanding the language curriculum. Seitz may have been keen for the

Victorian language curriculum to keep up with innovations taking place in other states.

Perhaps Inagaki and Seitz met to discuss the establishment of Japanese classes, and the two

were in mutual agreement, but this is pure speculation.

4.2.4 The push for Italian

While there is a marked absence of archived documents about the origins of Japanese, the

Special Case File 1315 contains a great deal of materials that relate to the decision to

introduce Italian on Saturday mornings. The Italian classes began at MacRobertson Girls’

High School on Saturday June 8th 1935, a short time after the Japanese classes had started.87

This was another important event for language education in Victoria because like Japanese,

Italian was not being taught in any government or non-government schools at that time.

Italian had been a community language in Australia since the nineteenth century.88 During

that time, some secondary schools had included Italian in the curriculum.89 By 1900, there

were many Sicilians engaged in the fruit and vegetable trade in Australian cities.90 During the

1920s, the Italian community in Australia was small but not insignificant. Australians already

spoke of the ‘Italian community’ of Melbourne. By the 1933 census, they were the biggest

84 Seitz 1935, p. 107. 85 Ibid, p. 115. 86 Darling 1935, p. 332. 87 CISS, 31 May 1935, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 88 Clyne and Kipp 2006, p. 8. 89 Clyne 1991, p. 10-11. 90 J Templeton, ‘Italians in Australia’, in G Davison, S Macintyre & J Hirst, The Oxford companion to Australian history, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, 1998, pp. 354.


94

non-British immigrant group in Australia.91 By the mid-1930s, there were approximately

40,000 Italian nationals living in Australia. By this time, their profile had become significant,

becoming the largest European nationality in Australia, with the majority of them living in

Victoria.92

One of the early providers of Italian language education in Victoria was the Melbourne

Branch of the Dante Alighieri Society.93 Scholars describe the Dante Alighieri Society as an

Italian “ethnic school.”94 Its aims were “To protect and to promote the Italian language and

culture in the world, while upholding the sense of italianità [Italianism]; reviving the spiritual

ties of Italians in foreign countries with the motherland and developing among foreigners

love and respect towards Italian civilisation.”95 In the 1920s, the Society started becoming

involved in Italian language instruction for migrants and it was running its own classes by

1934.96

Yet its aims were much broader than that of most “ethnic schools”, in that it sought to

promote Italian beyond the Italian speaking community. In 1934 it began running Italian

language classes that were intended for an Anglo-Australian student base. The Society’s

treasurer resigned in protest but Dr Soccorso Santoro, the Society’s President, extolled the

success of the classes. By 1935 there were two strands of classes. There were evening classes

for adults run by the Society, and the classes for school aged children that were held on

Saturday mornings at MacRobertson Girls’ High School as part of the Saturday experiment.97

There had been a comprehensive push from several angles for the establishment of the Italian

classes. The idea was set in motion on May 2nd 1935, when Santoro wrote to the Education

Department in Victoria, urging it to introduce Italian into the school curriculum:

I would ask you to kindly bring before the Members of the Council for Public Education the earnest desire that the Italian language be included officially among the foreign languages taught in the various schools and colleges of Victoria, and that it might be numbered

91 Templeton 1998. 92 Mayne 1997, p. 52. 93 Ibid, p. 12. 94 Kringas and Lewins 1981, p. 33. 95 Mayne 1997, p. 17. 96 Ibid, p. 66. 97 Ibid, p. 66-67.


95

among the subjects listed for Intermediate, Leaving and Matriculation examinations. 98

Santoro suggested that Italian study would appeal to Australians with an interest in music and

singing. Furthermore, he pointed out the “…well-known merits of Italian as a living language

and its kinship to English literature and culture”.99 He offered the society’s full support

through the provision of teaching materials and teaching staff.

On May 9th 1935, a meeting initiated by The Dante Alighieri Society was held, “which

pushed successfully for the teaching of Italian as a Leaving Pass Certificate and a

Matriculation subject.”100 It was attended by many influential figures in the education field,

including Seitz, among others.101 In his address, Professor Chisholm, the Professor of French

at the University of Melbourne, stated that he had been a strong supporter of the claim of

Italian for many years.102

In the following days, Mr. J. McRae, Director of Education, suggested to Seitz that Italian

could be taught on Saturday mornings at MacRobertson Girls’ High School, “on similar lines

to the Japanese class”.103 Seitz had no objections, provided that the classes would not incur

any cost to the Department, teachers could be found, and that a suitable number of students

were interested. He recommended a “trypo” 104 be sent out to the headmasters of Victoria’s

metropolitan high schools, seeking an indication of the number of interested students, as well

as the names of any teachers who would be able to teach Italian. A committee was formed to

support the promotion of Italian.105

Yet it was not only Seitz who was responsible for the establishment of Italian to the Saturday

classes. The academic and popular essayist Walter Murdoch wrote a letter from Western

Australia, where Italian was already being taught in government schools. He supported the

push, claiming that “an acquaintance of the language, literature and history of Italy is a

98 S Santoro, 2 May 1935, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 99 Ibid. 100 Mayne 1997, p. 68. 101 F Klarberg, ‘Italian in Australia Accreditation as a Public Examination Subject 1920-1935’, Convivio, vol. 2, no. 2, October 1996, pp. 154-163, p. 160. 102 ‘Study of Italian should be encouraged in Victoria: Subject for Schools: Resolution at Meeting’, The Argus, 10 May 1935, p. 10 103 Education Department, 13 May 1935, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 104 Around this time, Departmental circulars and memos were generated using mimeographic technology, on a trypograph machine, often called “trypo” for short. 105 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 25 June 1935, p. 143.


96

possession without which no person of British stock can be said to be able to enter on his full

cultural heritage”. 106 The high profile Italian businessman Gualtiero Vaccari was also

involved in the establishment of Italian.107 He provided support in the form of fifty guineas in

prize money to be awarded to the top students at the Saturday classes. In addition, prizes were

awarded to the first government and non-government school in Victoria to introduce Italian

into the mainstream curriculum.108 Others suggest that it was Vaccari, together with the

Italian Consul Enrico Anzilotti, who were responsible for the Italian classes.109

By the end of May 1935, fifty-seven students had indicated their interest in learning Italian.

Seitz proposed that two teachers from the Dante Alighieri Society would be supplied. Classes

would be free of charge for students from government schools. Staff from the University of

Melbourne would be consulted in regard to appropriate teaching materials. Seitz requested

that a classroom at MacRobertson Girls’ High School be found and that the classes should

start in early June. He also requested that a class be started for teachers. McRae granted

approval for these arrangements provisionally “under the special circumstances”, but noted

that it would be reviewed at the end of the year.110

The Italian classes began at 9:30am on Saturday June 8th 1935. Mr L.V. Ottaway, who was

the Secondary Inspector of Modern Languages, would be in attendance.111 A class for

students from non-government (registered) schools was also set up.112 The students who

attended the Saturday morning classes appear to be entirely of Anglo-Saxon origin. They

were the children of settled, middle class families.113 There were not many secondary schools

at that time and secondary education was still out of reach for many Victorian families.114

106 ‘La “Dante” per la Lingua Italiana’, Il Giornale Italiano, 5 June 1935, p. 3, F Alexander, ‘Murdoch, Sir Walter Logie (1874–1970)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published first in hardcopy 1986. Retrieved 14 July 2015, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/murdoch-sir-walter-logie-7698/text13477. 107 Mayne 1997, p. 64. 108 E Anzilotti, 20 June 1935, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-194 109 G Easdown, Gualtiero Vaccari: A Man of Quality, Wilkinson Publishing, Melbourne, 2006, p. 40. 110 Education Department, 29 May 1935, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945 111 CISS, 31 May 1935, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-194 112 L Ottaway, no date, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. One of the original attendance rolls is marked “Scotch College Class” which suggests that the class for students from non-government schools may have been held there. The materials archived in Special Case File 1315 are overwhelmingly concerned with government schools and very little evidence about non-government schools has been kept. 113 Klarberg, Di Benedetto, and Takeuchi 1994, p. 281. 114 Lowenstein 1978, p. 3.


97

Students of non-state schools were required to pay the rate for single subjects, which was 15

shillings per term for Intermediate level subjects and £1.0.0 per term for Leaving subjects.115

This pricing arrangement would remain in place for many years. For a fee, interested students

could also enrol in Japanese and Italian tuition through the Correspondence School. Students

could also opt to take wireless courses supplied by the ABC and have their work corrected by

the Correspondence School. 116 This relationship between the Saturday classes and the

Correspondence school would continue for many decades to come.

As proposed by Seitz, the Dante Alighieri Society supplied two teachers for the Saturday

classes. One was Dr Bartolini, who “always carried out his work very conscientiously”.117

The other was Miss Helen Byrne who was the teacher in charge from the time the classes

began. She was an Australian who had attended the University of Melbourne and was

awarded The Mollison Scholarship for postgraduate study in Italy in 1933. She spent a year at

university in Perugia where she studied the history of Italian literature and art. When she

successfully passed her examinations, she “became the possessor of a “diploma per

l’insegnamento del Italiano all’estero" which gave her the right to teach Italian in foreign

schools”.118 After her return to Melbourne, Byrne retained an active interest in Italian issues.

Ottaway noted that “Her knowledge of Italian and English and of the methods of language

teaching in English schools… is of great benefit to young pupils who are beginning the study

of Italian.”119

Mr John Gregory was one student from Melbourne High School who attended the Italian

classes on Saturday mornings at MacRobertson Girls High School in 1936. He was interested

in Italian because he wanted to be able to speak Italian with his local greengrocer. He lived in

a Melbourne suburb where there were many Italian shopkeepers. He remembers it as a small

class with some older students. Unfortunately, he only attended for a few weeks before giving

up.120

Several weeks after the establishment of the classes, Ottaway organised for another special

class for teachers to be formed. He recognised that this was an important long term step 115 CISS, 25 February 1937, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 116 ‘Saturday Language Classes’, The Argus, 10 February 1937, p. 8. 117 L Ottaway, 22 February 1937, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 118 ‘Home from Italy. Miss Helen Byrne’, The Argus 4 May 1934. p 10. 119 Ibid. 120 Personal communication with Mr John Gregory, 24 June 2013.


98

towards helping the language to be established on a solid footing: “[I]f the study of the

language is to be continued successfully and if Italian is to become a subject in our schools it

is evident that there should be a supply of teachers in readiness to undertake the task.”121 The

teachers were to be charged £1.1.0 per term for 12 lessons. Teachers responded positively,

with enough men and women for two classes to be formed, with classes at MacRobertson

Girls’ High School commencing at 9:30am on Saturday June 29th 1935.122

Newspapers reported the events with interest. The Argus reported that nearly 60 pupils and 55

teachers had enrolled in Italian, and that more than 50 pupils were enrolled in Japanese.123

Newspapers in South Australia even reported on the Victorian developments.124 Students who

were interested in the Italian class “have chosen it for its cultural value and as groundwork

for study for an arts degree”.125

By the end of the 1935 school year, 28 students had completed a satisfactory year’s work in

Italian. This was considered equivalent to one intermediate subject.126 Seitz reported on the

establishment of the language classes:

A special experiment in providing Saturday morning classes at the Mac. Robertson Girls’ School for pupils who desire to learn modern languages was commenced in 1935. At the beginning of the year, two classes of students took up the study of Japanese. In the second term, in response to a demand for Italian, three classes of pupils and two classes of teachers were started successfully, with the help of the Dante Alighieri Society, which has provided instructors for the pupils’ classes and is giving assistance in the provision of suitable textbooks for pupils.127

In October 1935, the Melbourne University Schools Board made the decision to include

Japanese as a subject for Public Examination. The Associate Professor of French at the

University of Melbourne, Chisholm, was chairman of the Modern Languages Standing

Committee. Ryan, Pittman, Inagaki, as well as Mr Peter Russo (another ex-student of

121 Education Department, 31 May 1935, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 122 Education Department, 25 June 1935, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 123 ‘Study of languages: Italian and Japanese: Large enrolments reported’, The Argus, 7 August 1935, p. 8. 124 ‘Learning Italian’, The Cessnock Eagle and South Maitland Recorder, 14 February 1941, p. 8, 'Interesting People in all parts of Australia', Chronicle, 22 August 1935, p. 15. 125 Ibid. 126 J Seitz, 2 December 1935, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 127 Report of the Minister of Public Instruction for the Year 1934 – 1935, p. 18.


99

Inagaki) were asked to act as an advisory committee to the Modern Languages Standing

Committee.128

In December 1935, the prizes were awarded to the top students in Italian.129 One of the prize-

winners was Miss Wilga Rivers, a student at MacRobertson Girls’ High School.130 She later

recalled “the enthusiasm of the students and the happy atmosphere in the class”.131 With her

knowledge of Italian, she went on to study other languages and she later lived in the U.S.

where she completed a PhD. In 1973 she became one of the first women to be appointed a

full Professor at Harvard University, where she played a key role in the languages

department.132 Rivers gained international recognition as a leader in the theory and practice of

language teaching.133

4.2.5 Fluctuation and uncertainty

In the following years, the language classes continued, but the student enrolment numbers in

both languages fluctuated considerably. In 1937, the enrolments for the Italian classes were

lower than expected and Byrne was kept on as the sole teacher of Italian.134 The enrolments

in the Japanese classes stayed strong. The Sun reported that the students of Japanese expected

the language to be “invaluable in commercial work.”135 The Age newspaper also noted that

the Japanese classes were particularly popular among female students. There were three

classes of Japanese, taught by Ryan, Pittman and a third teacher; Captain Fred East.136 East

was another of Inagaki’s ex-students.137 The Inspector remarked that he “Continues to do v.g.

work with instruction in Japanese”.138 Inagaki’s influence was far reaching. As one historian

pointed out, “The teachers had all, at one time, been pupils of Inagaki.”139

128 Klarberg, Di Benedetto, & Takeuchi 1994, p. 284. 129 L Ottaway, no date, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 130 Education Department, 26 November 1935, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 131 Victorian School of Languages Family and Staff Bulletin no. 2, May 2005, p. 3. 132 Ibid. 133 B Melvin, ‘Rivers, Wilga Marie’, in M Byram (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, Routledge, London and New York, 2000, pp. 520-521. 134 L Ottaway, 22 February 1937, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 135 Ibid. 136 ‘Girls prefer Japanese!’ The Age, 15 February 1937, p. 10. 137 Zainu'ddin 1988, p. 51. 138 Teacher record of Fred George East, VPRS 13718. 139 Zainu'ddin 1988, p. 51.


100

The Japanese classes ran from 9:30am until 11am but students were “as keen as mustard” and

often arrived early. In the intermediate class, students used illustrated readers, the same books

that were being used in Japanese schools. The Herald reported that they had been sent to the

Education Department from a “friendly prince” in Japan.140 The significance of this class was

not lost on the newspaper reporter, who stated:

One cannot doubt that the work being done with these young Australians is very important work indeed… in years to come they will form the nucleus of a very important and essential body of Japanese speaking Australians… a knowledge of Japanese may be a very important asset to a young citizen… These modest beginnings at the Girls’ High School may prove to be something of the very greatest importance.141

Senior Education Department officials closely monitored the number of enrolments in the

Saturday classes. Buoyed by the recent increase in student numbers in Japanese, Seitz and

Ottaway discussed expanding Japanese into the regular curriculum at University High School

(UHS) and Melbourne High School (MHS). In a draft letter to the headmasters of the two

schools, Ottaway wrote,

[I]if there is a reasonable demand from pupils who have already completed the Intermediate Certificate, classes for the study of Japanese should be formed at his school. A specialist teacher will be attached to the staff for one period each day. As the offer is also extended to the UHS and MHS, it will be necessary for the headmasters of both schools to make mutually satisfactory arrangements as to the allotment of the teacher's time.142

In response to the discussion, Seitz marked the proposal “pending”. Inagaki recognised the

significance of this opportunity and raised the question again at the end of 1937, pushing for

Japanese to be taught at several selected high schools.143 Ottaway rejected it, on the grounds

that “The classes on the Saturday morning are not overcrowded” and that “The response to the

broadcast and instruction by correspondence has been disappointing”.144 Despite this, it was

decided that the classes would be extended for a fourth year to cater for the students who

wished to sit for examinations.145

140 ‘Nippon comes to Melbourne’, The Herald, 25 July 1936, p. 29. 141 Ibid. 142 L Ottaway, 2 February 1937, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 143 M Inagaki, 28 December 1937, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 144 L Ottaway, 20 January 1938, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 145 Report of the Minister of Public Instruction for the Year 1936 – 1937, p. 19.


101

Ottaway was aware that the fluctuation in student enrolments was still an issue, and he

continued to report closely on attendance. In 1939, less than half of the students who had

started the year were continuing their language study. The drop in numbers of first year

students was particularly dramatic. In a report at the beginning of the 1940 school year,

Ottaway reported on the attrition problems:

Each year… the classes are filled with pupils anxious to begin Japanese or Italian, but as soon as it is realised that they must be prepared to give up the Saturday morning, attend regularly and study seriously during the week, the numbers fall away rapidly until only a fraction remain at the end of the year.146

The original idea behind the classes was to ascertain whether there was enough interest

among Victorian students to warrant the introduction of Japanese and Italian at several

metropolitan high schools. As mentioned above, this was discussed several times over the

years but it did not eventuate. Ottaway’s assessment was gloomy and he cast doubt over

whether this would ever happen, explaining, “it is apparent that there has been no increase in

numbers and no evidence of a growing demand for the languages among pupils generally.”147

In light of the situation, Ottaway questioned the viability of continuing the classes: “In view

of the small number who seriously undertake the study of Japanese and are prepared to

continue to a stage where it will be of any advantage to them it is questionable whether the

expense involved in providing teachers is warranted.”148 Following Ottaway’s suggestion, the

Director recommended that the classes should be discontinued. Seitz, on the other hand, who

had helped to initiate the establishment of the classes, had a different view. He believed that

the classes were important and that they needed to continue: “The Japanese and Italian classes

at MacRobertson GHS and at the Correspondence School should be continued. It is essential

that Australians should develop knowledge of Japanese.”149 With Seitz’ decision being final,

the classes continued.

Scholars have acknowledged the significance of this decision. “The interest and initiative

taken by those in charge to ensure the continuance of Italian during the war years and that of

the students who took up the challenge of studying a new language despite the difficult

146 L Ottaway, 2 February 1940, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 147 Ibid. 148 Ibid. 149 Ibid.


102

circumstances of the period is admirable.”150 In Seitz, the Saturday language classes had a

supporter and a champion. He was willing to continue with the special experiment despite the

attrition problems and small enrolment numbers.

4.2.6 Strategic factors

Even though Inagaki was ambitious and had campaigned hard for the expansion of the

Japanese language program, it can be speculated that Seitz was keen to continue the Japanese

program for broader reasons. His decision also went beyond the trend for Australian students

to be fascinated by the exotic culture and art of oriental Japan. Perhaps Seitz could see the

bigger picture: he knew there was a strategic need for Australians to develop a knowledge of

both Japanese and Italian. By the time that Seitz made this decision in early 1940, Australians

were aware that Italian and Japanese military expansion was a threat to Australian security.

There is an absence of direct archival evidence to support this idea. But as Lo Bianco

speculates: “What was happening with the VSL was the beginning of the idea that we needed

our own national knowledge of those countries. In the 20’s and 30’s, the Italian-Australians

and Japanese-Australians were enemy aliens. Australia was fighting both of those

countries.”151

However the decision to establish and to develop programs in these languages can also be

seen as a sign that Australia was becoming more independent, and that it was adapting its

language policy to develop its own sources of information, As Lo Bianco suggests:

Up until then and I think still then, Australia depended on British and American sources for its strategic information and to mediate linguistically. This was the beginning of the need for knowing other countries in Australian terms rather than mediated by others. It indicates that the interests of other countries might not be the same as ours. We needed our own knowledge, our own interaction with foreign countries and not one that came through other people’s sources.152

150 Klarberg, Di Benedetto, Takeuchi 1994, p. 281. 151 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013. 152 Ibid.


103

4.2.7 A growing pool of teachers

Among the small group of students who passed examinations in 1938 was Miss Dorothy

McKay. She passed the fourth year examination in Japanese and returned to the Saturday

classes to teach Japanese the following year. Another who passed the third year Japanese

examination was Miss Lillias Drummond, who also returned to the Saturday morning classes

years later as a teacher of Japanese.153 The classes were beginning to foster a growing pool of

qualified teaching staff in the Education Department. Later in 1938, the two Japanese teachers

at the Saturday classes, Ryan and Pittman, were invited by the Japanese government to go on

a three-month tour of Japan with a small delegation of Australian teachers.154 This was a

notable event, which was reported widely in newspapers both in Melbourne and interstate.155

While Ryan and Pittman visited Japan, the Japanese classes were taught by Inagaki himself,

as well as East and McKay.156 Just prior to her return from Japan, Ryan and the other teachers

were interviewed. It was broadcast via shortwave radio from Tokyo. Ryan described the

“charming people and a beautiful country.” 157 Byrne on the other hand, did not continue

teaching the Italian classes. In 1942 she returned to the University of Melbourne where she

trained in medicine. In her career as a doctor, she frequently used her Italian skills and was

even known to learn Greek in order to communicate with patients.158

4.2.8 Student recollections of Japanese

In 1939, one of the students who started studying Japanese at the Saturday classes was Mrs

Nesta Potts (nee Doherty), who was a student at MacRobertson Girls High School. Potts was

one of just 12 first year students of Japanese who persisted until the end of the year. In fact

she went on to complete three years of Japanese study at the Saturday classes. More than

seventy years later, at her home in Melbourne, Potts recalled the “lovely atmosphere” of the

Japanese classes. She decided to learn the language because her mother loved Japanese art.

153 ‘1938 University examination results’, The Argus, 16 February 1939, p. 9. 154 ‘Women teachers to visit Japan’, The Argus, 25 October 1938, p. 4. 155 ‘Teachers’ tour of Japan. Five to leave in January’, The West Australian, 24 October 1938, p. 14. ‘Queensland Teachers in Japan Treated Like Royalty’, The Telegraph, 15 March 1939, p. 13. 156 L Ottaway, 17 April 1939, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 157 ‘Australian teachers charmed by Japan’, The Courier-Mail, 1 February 1939, p. 3. 158 Henderson, M, ‘Byrne, Helen Elizabeth’, College Roll, Royal Australasian College of Practitioners, 2009. Retrieved 2 June 2014, https://www.racp.edu.au/page/library/college-roll/college-roll-detail&id=2.


104

Her class used McGovern’s Colloquial Japanese to learn to speak and to write the Japanese

characters. Potts remembered Inagaki: “He would ask you questions, and hopefully you'd

give the right answers” (laughs).159 She remembered Inagaki as “Very good. Except he'd

make slight innuendos as far as sex, which we didn't like. I don't know what he thought he

was doing, but we weren't used to that sort of thing, at the MacRob” (laughs).160 After

leaving school, Potts had several opportunities to use her Japanese language skills in her

working life. During a wartime job in Army Education, where she taught unit education

officers, she was responsible for communicating with a Japanese prisoner of war. Potts

became a teacher in the Education Department with a focus on Special Education, and later

became a Principal. 161

4.2.9 The 1940s and the war years

Throughout the 1940s, the beginning of each academic year followed the same pattern. The

Education Department sent a “trypo” out to the headmasters of the metropolitan high schools,

seeking expressions of interest from students. Headmasters responded by sending the names

of interested students back to the Education Department. In 1940 there were three teachers

delivering the Saturday classes. They were Pittman and Ryan who took Japanese, and William

Johnston who took Italian.162 Inagaki’s influence on the Japanese classes would soon be over,

however. East, his ex-student, had enlisted “and was now serving with Military Intelligence

and building up a dossier on the Inagakis, his rivals in the teaching of Japanese.”163

In 1941, Mr Virgil Cain took on the role of Italian teacher and soon become the teacher in

charge of the Saturday Classes. He would stay at the school until 1966. Cain had taught at

Horsham High School and had completed his M.A at the University of Melbourne, for which

he was awarded a Carnegie fellowship to study at the Institute of Education at the London

University.164 In 1941 he was transferred to Box Hill High School. Cain was remembered as

“a prodigy of intellect and memory…[who] acquired a vast knowledge of languages”. 165 One

colleague remarked that “He was just one of those freakish language students. He was a 159 Interview with Nesta Potts, 2013. Sadly Nesta passed away on 23 March 2014. 160 Ibid. 161 Ibid. 162 Education Department, 1 March 1940, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 163 Zainu’ddin 1988, p. 57. 164 ‘Personal’, The Argus, 3 April 1936, p. 5 165 H Deakin, ‘Virgil Joseph Cain’, Obituary, The Age, 20 September 2001.


105

classical scholar, so he started with Latin and Classical and Ancient Greek, and then did the

Romance languages.”166 Cain’s job was multifaceted; not only did he teach the classes but he

eventually took on the role of “teacher in charge”; “he collected the student fees, and he hired

the teachers. He did all of that single handedly.” Cain continued all of this while teaching full

time at Box Hill High School.167

In mid-1941, Cain reported on the progress of his Italian class. He indicated his intention to

modify the normal three or four year Italian course into a shorter, more accelerated program

to be completed in just one year. The purpose was “to cover the Intermediate syllabus as fully

as possible in one year”.168 He added that students who were “suitably equipped” could even

attempt leaving standard with extra study. Cain indicated that “Needless to say, only those

with previous language experience would be advised to undertake this course”. Under Cain’s

guidance, the Saturday classes were taking on a more ambitious academic standard. Weaker

students need not apply; only those who had already achieved academically in languages

would be well enough equipped to achieve success. It was becoming more like an extension

class for gifted students.

In his report, Cain included a list of students and the marks that they had achieved in their

Italian language test. One of the students was Mrs Mavis Jordon (nee Lewis), a student at

University High School. At that time, University High School was regarded as an academic

school because it was one of the few schools in Melbourne that had a sixth form (the others

being MacRobertson Girls’ High School and Melbourne High School). Jordon was an

academically capable student who met the high standards that Cain was seeking. She

achieved the mark of 86 for her Italian test, which Cain noted was a “good result”. Jordon

recalls attending the Saturday classes at MacRobertson Girls’ High School in 1941. She had

already done well in two years of Latin and a year of French. She took Italian up as an

intellectual challenge; she liked the idea of learning a third language. She recalls that it felt

like a regular school except for one difference; there were no problems with discipline. “I

think we were all keen to learn. We didn’t come just to waste a Saturday morning.”169

166 Interview with “Edward”, 2013. 167 Ibid. 168 V Cain, 4 June 1941, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 169 Interview with Mavis Jordon (nee Lewis), 2013.


106

Ottaway again expressed concern about the poor uptake among students, noting, “weaker

pupils soon become discouraged by their inability to keep pace with stronger pupils and

discontinue attendance.” 170 He again gloomily concluded, “It would appear that the

endeavour to spread the knowledge of these languages has been met with little success.”171

All was not lost, however; as he conceded: “The movement, however, is only in an initial

stage, and with courses of study designed to meet the individual needs of beginners the

leakage so noticeable in the first year may be to some extent checked.”172

During the war years, negative policies and attitudes to languages other than English not only

persisted, but worsened. In 1940, the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Department

of External Affairs recommended that telephone conversations would be censored. Under

these arrangements, international telephone calls would be conducted in English or French

only.173 Where telephone conversations in other languages did occur, they were sometimes

intercepted.174

The war brought about many difficulties for Victorian schools. There was an extreme

shortage of teachers which lasted many years. 175 It also negatively affected language

education programs. The Italian and Japanese lessons that had been broadcast on ABC radio

ceased.176 The activities of the Dante Alighieri Society were suspended in June 1940 when

the Italian office holders were interned. Australian intelligence authorities viewed the Dante

Alighieri Society as “the chief publicist for Fascist Italy in Victoria”.177 Inagaki, who had

overseen the Japanese classes, was also interned on 11 December 1941. He was sent to the

internment camp in the Victorian country town of Tatura, where he remained until his

deportation on 1 January 1947.178 Students would have been under no illusions that Italy and

Japan were the enemies of Australia.

170 L Ottaway, 16 July 1941, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 171 Ibid. 172 Ibid. 173 Shedden, F, Advisory War Council Minutes (Original Set) Volume 1. Meetings 29 Oct 1940 to 14 Feb 1941. Minute Nos 1 to 149B, p. 9-10, available at John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library. Retrieved 28 May 2014, http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=98697&local_base=ERA01JCPML 174 Clyne 1991, p. 15. 175 The staffing difficulties due to the war were reported in Report of the Minister of Public Instruction for the Year 1939 – 1940, p. 18. 176 Klarberg, Di Benedetto and Takeuchi 1994, p. 281. 177 Mayne 1997, p. 46. 178 G Nicholls, Deported: a history of forced departures from Australia, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2007, pp. 79-80.


107

Despite this, the Education Department persisted with the language classes. The war,

however, brought another important change. Under the command of General Douglas

MacArthur, MacRobertson Girls High School had been requisitioned by the US army.179

From March 1942 onwards, the Saturday language classes shifted to University High

School,180 and remained there after the war.

In wartime, it became difficult to procure textbooks and they became prohibitively expensive.

Mr Alan Kinder, a Fourth Form student at Melbourne High School, was interested in

studying Japanese. He recalls going to University High School with a group of classmates

early in 1945 to enrol in the Japanese language course. “We were told about what reference

books we would need and their cost. For me and my family, and I believe most of the others

of our group, it was prohibitive. So I didn’t proceed with the course and I can’t recall that any

of our group did proceed.” 181 One of the textbooks listed for Japanese in 1945 was Language

Texts of Nippon, written by none other than Inagaki himself.182

4.2.10 Italian students and the Italian language

The names among the enrolled students occasionally included non-Anglo sounding names.

While surnames may have been an indication of a student’s heritage, it is not a definitive

measure of the changes among the student population, rather only an indication. Due to

complex societal relations there were perhaps many more students with a background

knowledge of a language, but who were not identified by their surnames. Yet at this time, the

language curriculum was ill equipped to handle the needs of such students. In early 1943,

Cain again reported on his students. One student, Mr Carlo Bracchi, achieved a “low pass”

for his intermediate level examination in Italian. Cain remarked that he “Has colloquial rather

than literary knowledge of Italian”.183 In this period, the Italian curriculum was heavily based

on literature. In the examinations, students were expected to read classical texts such as plays

and poetry. It would not be until 1956 that this emphasis on Italian “high culture” would shift

and contain features of an ethnic language.184 While Cain’s commentary on Bracchi’s

179 Parker, Girls, Empowerment and Education, 1996, p. 85. 180 Education Department, March 1942, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 181 Personal communication with Mr Alan Kinder, 2013. 182 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 15 June 1945, p. 120. 183 V Cain, 4 February 1943, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 184 Klarberg, Di Benedetto and Takeuchi 1994, p. 283.


108

performance is not surprising, it confirms that at that time, students with a background in the

language were not catered for and were considered an inconvenience.185 It also echoes

suggestions that discriminatory marking practices affected students who were native speakers

in some matriculation examinations.186

Teachers were also hostile to the idea of such students enrolling in the classes. In 1943, Mr

McNeece, Headmaster of the Correspondence School reported that only two students had

completed the year in Italian. Both of these students, he added, were of “Italian parentage”.

McNeece questioned why these students were enrolled at all, adding “it is doubtful if it is our

Department's obligation to teach the children of foreign parents to speak the language of their

fathers.”187

4.2.11 The introduction of Dutch

In January 1944, Professor Augustin Lodewyekx of the University of Melbourne requested

that the Education Department establish a Dutch class for Victorian students. It had already

been decided that Dutch would be offered as a subject for matriculation examinations from

1944 and at other year levels from 1945.188 Lodewyekx had established a Dutch course at the

university in 1942.189 It had produced a number of qualified teachers and he included a list of

suitable staff, among whom was none other than Cain. Lodewyckx explained: “the general

public is realising the importance of Dutch as the principal language of culture of the Dutch

Indies and as an instrument of research in Australian history and in colonial history in various

parts of the world.” 190 Seitz responded that he had “no objection”, and Lodewyckx

recommended Mr Haliczer of Scotch College as the teacher.191

It is clear that the Saturday classes continued to benefit from the help of powerful champions

in the academic community. Just as Inagaki had supported Japanese and Chisholm had

supported Italian in 1935, the involvement of key influential academics such as Lodewyckx 185 Ozolins 1993, p. 60. 186 Clyne 1991, p. 17. 187 J MacNeece, 15 November 1943, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 188 A Lodewyckx, 6 January 1944, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 189 J Martin, ‘Lodewyckx, Augustin (1876–1964)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published in hardcopy 1986. Retrieved 8 May 2014, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lodewyckx-augustin-7220/text12497. 190 A Lodewyckx, 6 January 1944, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 191 Education Department, 21 January 1944, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945.


109

was important for the introduction of Dutch. It can be surmised that Seitz’ reasons for

approving the establishment of Dutch was once again influenced by strategic factors. Among

Australia’s closest neighbours was an officially Dutch-speaking state and again it was

necessary for Australia to develop its own knowledge and information about this country.192

The Argus reported on these events, and proclaimed “For the first time in the history of

Australia, Dutch language classes have been organised by the Victorian Education

Department for pupils of secondary schools.”193 More than 60 pupils had enrolled, and that

“The large number of pupils enrolled for the new classes is proof of the keen interest this

cultural development has aroused.”194

At the end of 1944, Mr L. Brookes, the Headmaster of University High School, wrote to the

Chief Inspector of Secondary Schools, suggesting that a class in Russian be established. At

least eight pupils from his school had indicated an interest: “I am certain that this class would

be equally successful with the other Saturday morning modern language classes.”195 However

Ottaway was not in favour. He believed that there needed to be a more general demand for

the language. He added, “It remains to be seen whether the request for Dutch will be

sustained. The numbers for Japanese are small and show no increase since the inception of

the classes.”196

4.2.12 Student recollections of Italian

Many of the students who attended the Saturday language classes were not the typical student.

They were exceptionally capable and could meet the high standards set by Cain. Like Nesta

Potts and Mavis Jordon who were academically gifted, another student of the Saturday

classes was Mr James (Jim) Wheeler. He was a student of Italian for three years from 1946

until 1948. Wheeler excelled at languages; in 1948 as a final year student at Melbourne High

School he completed three languages, French, Italian and German, for which he was awarded

two first class honours and a second. Wheeler can recall the Saturday Italian class in detail.

“As far as I can remember all the students were “Anglos” – that is, none of them came from

192 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013. 193 ‘Dutch classes for secondary schools’, The Argus, 1 April 1944, p. 12. 194 Ibid. 195 L Brookes, 8 November 1944, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 196 Education Department, 9 February 1945, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945.


110

an Italian speaking background. All three levels were taught in the one room on the second

floor of U.H.S.”197

Wheeler recalls being taught by the grammar translation method, which prevailed at that time.

He can remember how Mr Cain taught the class as if it were yesterday:

Teaching method in Intermediate consisted of Mr. Cain explaining the grammar following chapter by chapter in the prescribed textbook Russo’s Practical Italian Grammar. We would then do exercises - I think from the book, or perhaps written on the blackboard by Mr. Cain - while Mr. Cain taught the Leaving class. In Leaving we pupils worked pretty much by ourselves doing translations from Murphy’s French Proses for Early Stages while Mr. Cain taught the then Intermediates. While they were working Mr. Cain went over the remaining chapters in the textbook and took us through a prescribed book of Italian short stories. At Matric level Ian Tricks and I worked entirely by ourselves from 9.30 until 11 doing translations and occasionally annoying Mr. Cain by giggling at each other’s jokes. At 11, when the Intermediate and Leaving students had left, Mr. Cain would give us a half hour session - prescribed texts and dictations.198

Oral skills were not a priority. “I doubt that I ever heard Mr. Cain speak Italian. I had no

practice at speaking Italian except for frustrating attempts at the local Preston greengrocers –

where they spoke Sicilian. I have no idea how I coped at the Matriculation oral examination.

But I did and passed with First Class Honours.”199 In Wheeler’s working life, he became

Lecturer then Senior Lecturer in the Education Faculty at Monash University until his

retirement in 1990.

4.2.13 Further diversification in languages

In April 1945, Mr R. R. Garland wrote to the Education Department asking whether there

was any intention to introduce Russian to the Saturday classes. He pointed out Russia’s

growing importance in the world and the significance of its scientific adventure.200 Education

Department officials believed there was insufficient demand.201 At the end of 1946, Garland

wrote again to the Education Department, with an even more impassioned enquiry as to why

Russian was not included among the languages being taught on Saturdays: “If the department 197 Personal communication with Mr Jim Wheeler, 10 July 2013. 198 Ibid. 199 Ibid. 200 R Garland, 17 April 1945, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945. 201 Education Department, 19 April 1945, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1945-1949.


111

can justify the teaching of Japanese, can it possibly justify its failure to teach Russian?"202

Early in 1947, Education Department officials revisited the Russian question. Seitz asked,

“Have you any objection to the addition of Russian and Chinese to the languages offered on

Saturday mornings, if competent instructors are available, and the demand justifies the

establishment [?]”.203 The Minister replied “No. These should be included if possible.” The

Chinese Consul was contacted in relation to providing a capable Chinese instructor.204

At the beginning of the 1947 school year, the circular that was sent to schools listed Russian

and Chinese as well as the usual Japanese, Italian, and Dutch.205 The Chief Inspector of

Secondary Schools subsequently reported that the Russian classes had been “well

attended”.206 The Russian teacher at the Saturday classes was Mrs Gladys Maud Martin,207

wife of the nuclear physicist, Professor Leslie Martin FRS, FAA, later Sir Leslie Martin.208

4.2.14 Student recollections of Russian

One student who took up the study of Russian at the new class was Barry Jones, later the Hon.

Dr. Barry Jones AC. At the time, Jones was a student at Melbourne High School and he

attended the Saturday classes for two years, in 1947 and 1948. As a teenager, he had a strong

fascination with Russian literature and politics. This interest was stimulated in 1946 by a

dramatisation of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment by the Macquarie Radio Theatre.209 It

had a certain power in its directness and it resonated with him profoundly. “There was an

extraordinary optimism in the immediate post-war period – Before the Cold War began, that

we might be able to remake the world, and that the Russians were going to play a very

important role in it.”210

202 R Garland, 30 December 1946, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1945-1949. 203 Education Department, 11 January 1947, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1945-1949. 204 Ibid. In 1949, when the Education Department sent its usual circular to metropolitan high schools, it did not include any mention of Chinese. The classes were presumably discontinued due to low enrolments. 205 Education Department, 13 February 1947, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1945-1949. 206 Report of the Minister of Public Instruction for the Year 1946 – 1947, p. 17. 207 Director of Education, 27 March 1947, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1945-1949. 208 RW Home, ‘Martin, Sir Leslie Harold (1900–1983)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published in hardcopy 2012. Retrieved 9 May 2014, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/martin-sir-leslie-harold-14939/text26128. 209 B Jones, A Thinking Reed, NSW, Allen & Unwin, 2006, p. 69. 210 Interview with Barry Jones, 2013.


112

Jones recalls his Russian teacher with great fondness. “I liked her very much. Mrs Martin,

was, as I recall, a great giggler. It didn’t take much for something to amuse her. She was a

very likeable, even loveable, character.”211 Martin taught the Russian classes in a traditional

manner, with blackboard work and students writing on sheets printed with a Roneo, a

mimeographic duplicating machine. “It was a matter of mastering the lettering, just learning

to write it reasonably comfortably, doing some sort of fairly basic translation, doing a little

bit of reading, doing a little bit of reading aloud. Some of us were interested in the poetry.”212

Once again, it is clear that the students who were attracted to the Saturday classes were

academically gifted and self-motivated, and they relished the additional intellectual challenge

of language study.

It is interesting to note the response of students from this early period when they were

contacted for this research project. At that time, the Saturday language classes did not have a

name and its students were unaware of the Education Department’s “special experiment”.

Without any identity of its own, students had assumed that the Saturday language classes

were simply being offered as a part of the curriculum of the mainstream school that hosted

the classes. As Jones reflected, “I am baffled about the VSL. I had assumed that Russian was

taught merely as an extension class at UHS.”213

Jones’ friend Noel Matthews, a contemporary from Melbourne High School, also attended

the Russian classes. He decided to study Russian because he had a fascination with Russian

culture and in particular the history of the Czarist regimes and the Russian Orthodox Church.

He remembers the classes fondly. “My recollection is that I enjoyed it so much I was very

happy going.”214 Matthews also remembers a second teacher, Mrs Nina Christesen who “was

a lovely person, a really nice lady.” 215 Christesen pioneered the study of Russian in Australia.

She established the Department of Russian Language and Literature at the University of

Melbourne in 1946 and headed it for more than thirty years.216 As a member of the academic

community, she was another important supporter of the Saturday classes. Christesen assisted

by nominating suitable teaching staff. As Matthews recalls, she also engaged the class in

211 Ibid. 212 Ibid. 213 Personal communication with Barry Jones, 18 July 2013. 214 Interview with Noel Matthews, 2013. 215 Ibid. 216 N Christesen, ‘A Russian migrant’, in P Grimshaw and L Strahan (eds), The half-open door: Sixteen modern Australian women look at professional life and achievement, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, 1982, pp. 54-77.


113

extra-curricular activities. “She was very artistically involved. She took us to Monsalvat a

number of times because she was friendly with Jörgensen, the chap who built Monsalvat.

And that was an interesting weekend excursion for us.”217 In 1949, Martin relinquished her

Russian class and at the suggestion of Christensen, Mr Henry Rosengren was appointed in

her place.218

4.2.15 The 1950s: stability and gradual growth

The first part of the 1950s was a period of stability when few changes were made to the

Saturday classes. Japanese, Italian, Dutch and Russian were offered once again in 1950.219 By

1955 the numbers of students enrolling in Russian had grown to the extent that Christesen

was consulted about the addition of a new teacher.220 The Chief Inspector of Secondary

Schools remarked on the popularity of the Russian classes, with a second class being

established.221

Throughout the 1950s, the Japanese class struggled to attract enrolments. Japanese was

offered each year, but for several years the enrolments for Japanese were too low to warrant

the formation of a class.222 The Secretary of the Education Department stated that he hoped

the class could be re-established.223 In 1953, the study of Japanese received a much-needed

boost, with the Library of the Department of Defence lending a set of textbooks to students.

This was arranged by the Chairman of the Standing Committee of Japanese at the University

of Melbourne.224 In 1958, there was an important change in the staffing for Japanese. It was

taken by Mr H.M. Rowe of Box Hill High School.225 Miss Ryan retired from the Education

Department in March 1958.226 On her retirement, Ryan was commended for her Japanese

teaching.227 Together, Miss Ryan and Miss Pittman had taught the Japanese classes since

217 Interview with Noel Matthews, 2013. 218 Ibid. 219 Education Department, 20 February 1950, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 220 Education Department, 14 September 1955, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971. 221 Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1954 – 1955, p. 24. 222 Education Department, 15 May 1952, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971, I Ryan, 27 May 1952, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971, Education Department, 27 February 1957, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 223 D Wheeler, 8 July 1952, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 224 H Hunt, 28 April 1953, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 –1971. 225 W Place, 28 February 1958 and 25 March 1958, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 226 Teacher record of Irene Catherine Ryan, VPRS 13718. 227 ‘Miss Ryan’, Echoes. The Magazine of the Coburg High School, vol. XIII, December 1958, p. 7.


114

1935. They were the Education Department’s first teachers of Japanese and after more than

twenty years, the time had finally come for them to hand over to a newcomer.

By 1959, Japanese had started to grow in popularity once again, and The Herald reported that

there had been a “good response” to the Japanese classes, which was an “encouraging trend”

towards Asian understanding. It echoed the sentiments of Galbally, the Labor leader in the

Victorian upper house, and who had just returned from a trip to South East Asia. Galbally had

said that fostering Oriental languages in Australian schools was important. “There is a long

way to go. Teachers are scarce. But the schools must eventually come round to a wide

teaching of Asian languages.”228

4.2.16 Growth gathers momentum

In 1958 student enrolments for the Japanese and Dutch classes only warranted the formation

of one class each, but there were enough students to form three classes for both Italian and

Russian.229 In 1959, the demand for classes jumped again, particularly in Italian.230 The

classes at University High School had increased significantly in number, with eight classes

now being held there.231 In order to accommodate the increasing demand, it was decided that

the Russian classes would be held at a second location, at St. Albans High School.232 This

expansion to different locations was something that would continue for years to come.

Wheeler, who had studied Italian under Cain, returned to the classes as a member of staff for

one term.233

Students were now enrolling from more than 35 high schools around Melbourne. This

included Nunawading, Reservoir and Ringwood, where new suburban high schools had

recently been established.234 Students with migrant backgrounds were now enrolling in

increasing numbers. The list of interested students included names such as Kamenew,

228 ‘Japanese on Saturdays’, The Herald, 18 July 1959, p. 4. 229 W Place, 28 February 1958, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 –1971. 230 A Woodhouse, 17 February 1960, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 231 W Place, 3 March 1959, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 232 W Place, 23 February 1959, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 233 Education Department, 27 February 1959, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 234 Education Department, no date, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971.


115

Mironczyk, DeBortoli and Klopotowski.235 It should be noted that surnames cannot be

considered a definitive measure of the changes among the student population. Due to

complex societal relations, there were perhaps many more students with a background

knowledge of a language, but who were not identified by their surnames. Occasionally,

Headmasters would also comment on the students’ previous experience of languages. One

wrote that Miss Wirowski, a prospective student of Russian, “has never had formal lessons in

Russian, but can read and write it a little.”236 It is clear that to a certain extent, language

classes in Dutch, Russian and Italian were being populated by students with a background

knowledge of those languages.

One student from University High School who attended in the mid-sixties was a second

generation Italian immigrant named “Edward”. The class generally consisted of other second-

generation children like himself. He recalls, “It was Italian as a second language, and the

students were keen; we belonged to the same generation. So it was good getting up on a

Saturday and going to class and doing some work and making new friends.”237 He remembers

that the standard was fairly high and he believes that it was pitched at students with a

background in the language. At Years Nine and Ten, the emphasis was on grammar. “And

then, for matriculation it was the standard course. You had an oral exam and then you had

short stories or a novel – and then grammar exercises, essay writing, listening

comprehension.”238 Edward believes that many of his classmates in his Italian class went on

to become the teachers who introduced Italian into the curriculum of mainstream schools in

Victoria.

4.2.17 Financial matters are reviewed

In 1960, the Education Department recognised that the language classes were undergoing a

period of growth, and this brought a need to secure working conditions for the teachers. The

Secretary of the Education Department wrote to the Teacher’s Tribunal: “It seems that there

has arisen a need to clarify the position with regard to the rates of payment of the instructors

235 Headmaster, Coburg High School and Headmaster, Dandenong High School, 25 February 1958, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1955 –1959. 236 Headmaster, Glenroy High School 24 February 1959, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1955–1959. 237 Interview with “Edward”, 2013. 238 Ibid.


116

employed in this work.”239 The teaching staff had not been given a new salary award since

1948. At that time, the rates of pay were increased to 25 shillings and 20 shillings for male

and female teachers respectively, for matriculation standard classes. For classes at school

leaving standard, the rates were 20 shillings and 16 shillings for male and female teachers

respectively.240 In 1960, the Tribunal recognised that teachers should be classified as

Instructor in Charge, Group 1. Where a centre consisted of five or more classes, there would

be a teacher appointed to organise and supervise. They would be responsible for the marking

of attendance rolls and for the general efficiency of the centre. That person would be

classified as Instructor in Charge, Group 3.241

Shortly after this, the question of tuition fees for pupils of non-government schools was also

reviewed. The fees for these students had remained unchanged since the 1930s. It was

decided that they would rise from £1 per term to £3.5.0.242 The fee increase brought several

complaints.243 This problem was further compounded by the publication of a press statement

that mistakenly stated that the classes were free of fees for all students.244 The Education

Department wrote to Principals of non-government schools and clarified that those students

would indeed be charged fees, but that the remission of fees was “under consideration.”245

This matter caused consternation within the Department and it prompted officials to debate

the place of the classes in the education system. Up until that point, the classes had been able

to take place under Regulation XXV as Special Classes held outside normal school hours.246

A debate ensued about whether the Regulations needed to be amended. An accountant in the

Department stated:

These special language classes do not quite fit into any of our Regulations. Although they are, of course, held outside normal school hours, they have always been regarded as normal school classes held at one central point on Saturday mornings because enrolment numbers do not justify the establishment of such classes during school hours at any particular schools.247

239 W Place, 17 February 1960, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 240 Ibid. 241 Secretary, Teacher’s Tribunal, 6 April 1960, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 242 W Crellin, 24 April 1963, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 243 Education Department, 9 July 1963, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 244 ‘School for languages’, The Sun, 25 February 1964, p. 17. 245 W Crellin, 27 February 1964, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 246 Education Department, 19 March 1963, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 247 Education Department, 19 April 1963, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971.


117

The Assistant Chief Inspector of Secondary Schools believed that it would not be possible for

non-government schools to offer these languages, adding: “We are involved in a world-wide

movement to encourage the learning of foreign languages.”248 It was eventually decided that

the students from non-government schools would continue to pay fees.

4.2.18 A push for Asian languages

In 1961, the school branched out again with the addition of Indonesian to the list of languages

taught on Saturday mornings at University High School. Support for Asian languages was

growing, and a group of school committees urged “the Department to commence training

teachers in these languages [Chinese and Japanese] now, so that in the near future such

languages can be included in the average High School curriculum without fear that the

subject will lapse through lack of teachers for that subject.”249 As a way to appease the group,

the Education Minister highlighted the existence of the Saturday language classes, but then

went on to suggest that Asian language programs were not necessary: “Although Oriental

language study is not part of the normal school curriculum, there is opportunity in the study

of geography, history and social studies for pupils to learn of the manner of life, problems

and outlook of Eastern peoples.”250

In 1964, the classes were held at two locations; University High School where there were 14

classes and at Errol Street, North Melbourne where there were 6 classes. By this time,

numbers had ballooned with a total of 718 students studying five languages. As supervisor of

the University High School centre in 1964, Cain was involved in a complex job. He was

responsible for dividing “an unprecedented number” of students into classes, finding rooms,

finding teachers, not to mention teaching his own Italian class. For a short period, Cain was

also asked to collect the students’ tuition fees. He cited “enormous practical difficulties” in

doing this task. 251 The Assistant Chief Inspector of Secondary Schools agreed that the issue

of the collection of fees was a problem and that “The whole system required “tidying up”.252

It is not known whether this was the final straw for Cain, but he indicated that he would

248 Education Department, 26 February 1964, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 249 Education Department, 27 March 1961, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 250 Ibid. 251 V Cain, 27 April 1964, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971. 252 Education Department, 6 August 1964, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971.


118

finish at the end of 1964 and that a new supervisor would be appointed for 1965.253 He had

taught at the Saturday classes for 23 years.

4.2.19 New pedagogies for language learning

In the 1930s, formal secondary education had not been an option for the majority of students.

By the mid-1960s, however, it had become a means to an end for the majority of

Australians. 254 Despite a reconstruction of the Australian education system, Victoria’s

approach to languages and language teaching underwent very minor changes throughout this

period. At this time, languages were still largely taught by the grammar translation method,

and it was still considered an elite pursuit that was good training for the mind. As a

matriculation requirement, language study still served the important function of sorting the

high achieving, academically minded students from the average ones.

Around the early 1960s, a new trend called the language laboratory emerged, which was a

classroom specially equipped with booths and headphones for students. By 1963, two state

high schools had been equipped with such a laboratory.255 The choice of languages on offer

for students, however, was slow to change. The Education Department had decided in 1950

that the study of Latin would no longer be compulsory in its secondary schools.256 But in

1964, the Chief Inspector of Secondary Schools still continued to extol the virtues of Latin:

“it remains policy to retain and foster this subject in those schools where the bias is towards

training for the professions”.257

Academics began to debate the place of language maintenance in language programs. In 1964,

McCormick argued for Italian to be taught in mainstream schools. It was the Italian

community themselves who had pushed for this move. He argued that such a program could

actually help the assimilation process.258 Clyne agreed, suggesting that the teaching of

migrant languages would be most likely to result in assimilation if they were taught in

mainstream schools, not simply in Saturday schools, as some ethnic groups had resorted to,

253 Education Department, 8 May 1964, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 –1971. 254 Barcan 1972, p. 202. 255 Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1962 – 1963, p. 37. 256 Education Gazette and Teachers' Aid, 24 March 1950, p. 77. 257 Ibid. 258 Ozolins 1993, p. 93.


119

which was “understandable in the given circumstances”.259 He added that all children,

including Australian children as well as migrant children should study the migrant languages

at day school, effectively securing the status of migrant language teaching.

In 1965, the attitude of the Chief Inspector had started to change: “Where the demand is

sufficient and qualified staff are available, pilot courses in languages other than those

traditionally taught may be introduced, following approval by the Department.”260 The

following year, Russian and Italian programs were established at two high schools for the

first time in Melbourne.261 The initial rationale for the Saturday classes was to teach

languages that were not available in the mainstream schools. With the introduction of Russian

and Italian into the curriculum of a small number of high schools, it appeared that the

Saturday classes had served their initial purpose. What these pilot programs would mean for

the future of the Saturday classes is something that was still unclear at this stage.

Section 3. Beginnings: Discussion and analysis

4.3.1 Meyer’s theories and the origins of the VSL

The issue of legitimacy lies at the core of many of the events and issues presented in this

narrative of the early part of the VSL. These events and issues relate closely to the first

research question that this thesis seeks to address: How did the VSL and its language

communities gain legitimacy within the education system?

The theories developed by Meyer are particularly appropriate for approaching this question.

Arising from the field of organisational studies, these theories are about the ways in which

organisations gain legitimacy and improve their prospects for survival. Organizational

structures arise in highly institutionalised contexts. By institutionalised contexts, they refer

to:

widespread understandings of social reality. Many of the positions, policies, programs and procedures of modern organizations are enforced by public opinion, by the views of important constituents, by knowledge legitimated through the educational system, by social

259 M Clyne, ‘Migrant Languages in Schools’, Babel, issue 27, 1964, pp. 11–13, p. 11. 260 Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1963 – 1964, p. 33. 261 Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1964 – 1965, p. 42.


120

prestige… Such elements of formal structure are manifestations of powerful institutional rules which function as highly rationalized myths that are binding on particular organizations. 262

Meyer and Rowan assert that these external institutional rules have an enormous impact on

organisations, and that organisations are compelled to incorporate these elements into their

operations in order to gain legitimacy and to increase their prospects for survival.

Organisations are heavily influenced by their respective institutionalised contexts and

inevitably, they must reflect and parallel them.263 Organisations that fail to incorporate these

“building blocks” risk illegitimacy, because it is these institutional rules that “are considered

proper, adequate, rational and necessary”.264

In 1935, the school was not yet a school, it was merely a “special experiment” set up to pilot

a niche curriculum area that had not been offered before. Despite this, the language classes

did fit closely with many of the externally prescribed myths espoused by the education

system in many important ways. In particular, “special experiment” aligned itself closely with

many of the official structures of the education system.

Importantly, the Saturday morning classes took place in the classrooms of one of Victoria’s

most prestigious and well-known girls’ high schools, MacRobertson Girls’ High School. In

the case of Japanese, the teachers Irene Ryan and Amelia Pittman were qualified, experienced,

and appropriately credentialed Education Department staff. This was the case for Italian from

1941 with the arrival of Virgil Cain. Significantly, the classes were set up by the Education

Department itself, lending a further vital element of legitimacy to the operation.

In addition, in the case of Japanese, the establishment of the course was said to have been

initiated by Inagaki, who had also initiated the Japanese language program at the University

of Melbourne. The establishment of Italian was also supported by Professor Chisholm. This

close affiliation with university academics continued for years to come. Professor Lodewyekx

supported the establishment of the Saturday classes in Dutch and Christesen supported the

Russian classes. In Meyer’s theory, close affiliations with key figures in the academic

community are another key external institutional context of the education system, which

262 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 343. 263 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 346. 264 Ibid, p. 345.


121

provide another essential element of legitimacy to the classes. In this way, the many links

between the Saturday classes and the authority of the university provided an ongoing

conformity with the institutional rules of the education system.

Furthermore, the Saturday language classes were described in the same legitimated

vocabularies as those that would be found in mainstream schools. As reported in The Herald

in 1936, students learned vocabulary and grammar, and used language textbooks. 265 They

engaged in the same accepted conventions for language learning as students did when they

learned French or Latin. Furthermore, the fact that the students were enrolled in courses that

were named in accordance with the accepted standard for each year level, such as

intermediate, leaving and matriculation, also accurately reflected the external rules of the

broader education system.

The fact that students sat external examinations for Japanese and Italian can also be

interpreted as the adoption of external criteria of worth, another element that was crucial to

the legitimisation of the school. The examinations also provided a crucial incentive for the

establishment of the classes. In the case of Italian, it was partly due to the Dante Alighieri

Society’s push for students to be able to sit the Italian examinations that the Education

Department was prompted to set up Italian classes in 1935. Furthermore, the fact that students

wished to sit future examinations provided important impetus for the continuation of the

classes. With the university making provision for Leaving Honours examinations in Japanese

and Italian in 1938, it was decided at the end of 1937 that the Saturday classes would be

extended for a fourth year in 1938, to cater for the students who wished to sit for those

examinations. These developments were reported in the print media, providing a broad level

of understanding that the classes were official and valid.

When students achieved high marks for the external examinations, these events were

acknowledged publicly. In his annual ministerial report in 1937, Seitz stated that pupils had

presented for both the Intermediate and Leaving Pass examinations with “marked success”.266

These valuable endorsements continued in following years. These official validations by the

Education Department’s senior staff can be understood as crucial steps towards the school

gaining legitimisation, through its association with the measure of the prestigious external 265 ‘Nippon comes to Melbourne’, The Herald, 25 July 1936, p. 29. 266 Report of the Minister of Public Instruction for the Year 1936 – 1937, p. 19.


122

examinations. Such endorsements provided another essential demonstration of the suitability,

the credibility and the legitimacy of the Saturday classes. In these ways, the “special

experiment” was a legitimised and valid operation, which conformed closely to many of the

official institutionalised structures surrounding the school system in Australian society during

the interwar years.

Despite the fact that the classes could be said to accurately imitate the external

institutionalised structures surrounding the school system in many convincing ways, it is

important to note that the Saturday language classes were not in fact a legitimate school. This

is a limitation of Meyer’s theory that will be revisited later in this thesis. The Saturday classes

were operating on a very small scale and with such low enrolment numbers, that it was

constantly at risk of being discontinued. This is an anomalous element that Meyer’s theory

cannot quite explain. Even though the Saturday classes were indeed part of the Education

Department, and were auspiced by the government system, they were not an official school.

In terms of legitimate schools, it did not actually exist. It was still experimental and it did not

have an official place in the education system. The fact that the school cannot be considered

legitimate is also clear in the recollections of its students from this era. When contacted for

this study, interview participants indicated that they assumed that the Saturday classes were

being operated by the day school that “hosted” the classes. They were surprised to learn that

they had attended the precursor to the VSL. This demonstrates the school lacked a profile and

it lacked a school identity, which can be seen as further evidence that it was not yet a

legitimate school during this early period.

The discussions between Ottaway and Seitz about the low enrolment numbers reveal that

there was not widespread student demand for programs in Japanese and Italian in Victoria in

the 1930s and 1940s. The classes catered to a very small and specialised pocket of students

who demanded tuition in these “niche” languages. Students who enrolled in the Saturday

classes were generally English background speakers who were highly motivated and relished

the intellectual challenge of learning an additional language. In terms of Meyer’s theory,

there was limited student demand and therefore there was not a strong external constituency

that would provide legitimacy for the new language programs.

However as the enrolment numbers dwindled, and the future of the classes seemed uncertain,

Seitz’ commitment to a more powerful external constituency ensured the classes were not


123

discontinued. Seitz recognised that it was important for Australian students to develop an

understanding and a knowledge of the languages of Australia’s enemy countries for strategic

reasons. Although these were unstated motivations, the desire to create a pool of Australians

who were literate in Italian and Japanese can be seen as manifestations of powerful

institutional rules that were designed to enhance Australia’s intelligence capabilities during

wartime.

4.3.2 Micro and macro language policy and planning and the origins of the VSL

These ideas suggest that the narrative of the early part of the school’s history is also

beginning to inform answers to the second research question: How was the VSL shaped by

“macro” and “micro” language policy and planning?

The linguist Leitner described the VSL as a “grass-roots initiative that was absorbed by a top-

down policy.”267 As Leitner suggests, the school was undoubtedly the subject of both micro

and macro level policy and planning at different times in its history. This comment suggests

that in this early period, the school was the result of a grass roots movement, and in later

stages, it was shaped by official government policy. In reality, however, the situation was far

more complex for the early period.

While there were certainly some advocates on the community level who helped to initiate the

language classes in 1935, it was in fact a combined effort. The “special experiment” came

about as a result of discussions and meetings between officials in the Education Department,

which auspiced the school’s operations, and the subject communities. The subject

communities consisted of academics, community figures and leaders in the education field.

These events cannot simply be characterised as the result of initiatives on the grassroots level.

It is also important to note that policy can at times be contradictory. Without an overarching

language policy or surveillance in place, there may have been different approaches adopted in

different autonomous government agencies and departments.268

As Lo Bianco explains, the decision to establish classes in Japanese and Italian can be

understood as language policy changes that were designed to enhance Australia’s intelligence 267 Leitner 2004, p. 263. 268 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013.


124

efforts: “espionage and strategic interests have always been very closely tied to language

policy”.269 These developments were made as top-down, macro level initiatives, and they

came from the government. He believes that these programs were seen to be “targeted

language learning” and the VSL was what enabled the education system to deliver targeted

programs. Schools, on the other hand, were seen to be for other kinds of purposes.270

The establishment of the language classes did not only come about as a result of the broader,

external circumstances, but also due to the personal ideas, ambitions, vision and efforts of a

group of individuals. In Meyer’s theory, and in the above discussion, there is no provision to

account for the significant role of individuals, such as Inagaki, Seitz and Ottaway and Cain,

in the story of the Saturday language classes. Meyer’s theories do not account for the role of

individuals in these developments. This represents another possible limitation of these

theoretical lenses and this problem will be revisited later in this thesis. Later in this thesis,

Clark’s Organizational Saga will be used as a way to analyse the emotional aspects of the

school’s history. For this early period of the beginnings of the Saturday classes, however,

there is no discernible Organizational Saga that is evident.

4.4 Conclusion

This historical analysis of the primary material, together with the theoretical interpretation,

suggests a number of things about the VSL in its early decades. Firstly, even though it did not

have a name, a physical building, or an official status, the special classes in languages did

conform in many ways to the same strict regulations of mainstream state schools. In adhering

to these myths, and accurately reflecting society’s expectations of teachers, curricula,

pedagogy and schools, it could be said that the Saturday language classes were doing

important work in laying down the foundations for the VSL’s future claims for legitimacy.

These claims will be explored in the following chapter.

269 Ibid. 270 Ibid.

Chapter 5. Growth and the journey towards recognition 1965 – 1987

125


5.1 Introduction

This chapter is the second of three chapters to trace the history of the Saturday language

classes. It is made up of two sections. The first is a historical narrative that begins with the

appointment of Mr Burnie Rymer as Teacher in Charge in 1965 and ends in 1987. The

second section is a theoretical discussion. It provides a theoretical analysis of the issues

surrounding the school’s growing claims for legitimacy during this period.

In the period 1965-1987, the Saturday language classes underwent a remarkable

transformation. In this period, there was a series of events that triggered spectacular growth

in the number of new language programs established, new centres opened and in student

enrolments. This began with the establishment of the Centre of Modern Greek at Oakleigh

Primary School, where the language was set up on a solid footing. This effectively opened

the door to subsequent migrant language groups that sought language maintenance programs

for their children. Yet this period was not without challenges. The Education Department was

willing to support the growth of the classes, but it also introduced other restrictions, in the

form of tighter regulations.

Rymer and other administrators were constantly seeking to increase the school’s status and

prospects for survival. There are many instances where the leaders of the school sought to

legitimise many aspects of its operations. This intensified from 1982 onwards, when Joe

Abiuso became the school’s headmaster. He led a lengthy campaign to have the school

upgraded and formally recognised as an official state school.

These developments at the Saturday classes took place against the backdrop of a tumultuous

social and political period in Australian history, when significant shifts in the political

landscape took place. Between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s, the country’s position on

assimilation weakened and in its place, attitudes towards multiculturalism began to emerge.1

Australia’s shift in immigration policy became official in 1971, when the government

adopted a new policy that was non-discriminatory and removed preferences for British 1 Clyne 1991, p. 18.


126

migrants.2 This change brought about increasing numbers of migrants from Asian countries

such as Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, India, the Philippines and Cambodia. Refugees from

Vietnam also arrived from the mid-1970s.3

The period from 1970 onwards has been labelled as the “accepting” phase of multilingualism

in Australia.4 By the mid-1970s, Melbourne had become one of the most multilingual cities

in the world, more so than Sydney and New York, with approximately thirty per cent of its

population born outside Australia. Melbourne’s Greek community was the third largest in the

world.5 Around this time, it was also estimated that there were as many as 2000 ethnic

organisations and media groups in Australia.6 The power that was asserted by ethnic activism

grew to a very high level. “Ethnic community language interests, often in the past centring on

relatively private initiatives in ethnic schools or newspapers, had now come to be publicly

asserted so strongly as to motivate considerable response on the part of governments and

some instrumentalities.”7

During this period, dramatic changes were also taking place in Australian schooling. By the

mid-1970s, secondary schooling up until the age of 15 or 16 had become the norm for

Australian children. With a population boom and post-war immigration, enrolments

ballooned and government schools were under great strain.8 Around this time, schools were

under tight central control by the states, and this meant that they were restrictive and

inflexible in their curriculum, thus limiting the choice of languages available for study.9 In

the early 1960s, there was a new principle of “secondary education for all” that saw all

students progress from primary to secondary schooling. With this shift came a transformation

of the curriculum. Subjects such as Latin and French lost favour, as they were considered

elitist.10 Because this era brought new opportunities for children from lower socioeconomic

2 J Warhurst, ‘The growth lobby and its opponents: business, unions, environmentalists and other interest groups’ in J Jupp and M Kabala (eds), The Politics of Australian Immigration, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1993, pp. 181 – 203, p. 196. 3 Clyne and Kipp 2006, p. 9. 4 Clyne 1991, p. 24. 5 W Lowenstein and M Loh, The Immigrants, Penguin Books, Melbourne, 1977, p. 11. 6 Jupp 2002, p. 28. 7 Ozolins 1993, p. 155. 8 Proctor and Campbell 2014, p. 179. 9 Clyne 1991, p. 217. 10 Barcan 1993, p. 42.


127

backgrounds to continue their education, it has been called “the high point for government

schools in Australia”.11

Section 1: The SSML and its journey towards recognition

5.1.1 Growth at the Saturday School of Languages (SSL)

In 1965, the profile of the Saturday classes was given a significant boost when they were

advertised for the first time in The Education Gazette and Teacher’s Aid.12 The advertisement

stated that classes in Italian, Japanese, Indonesian, Dutch and Russian were being offered at

University High School. The Education Gazette was an official periodical for teachers and

principals in Victorian schools. Up until that time, the Saturday classes had only been

advertised in the Melbourne newspapers. That year, another important change took place.

With Mr Virgil Cain relinquishing his role at the end of 1964, Mr Burnie Rymer became

teacher in charge of the Saturday classes. This was the first time that the teacher in charge

had been a non-teaching role.

Rymer’s involvement with the Saturday classes began in 1965. He was teaching at Princes

Hill High School when he was contacted by Mr David Satchel, the Assistant Director of

Secondary Education. He wanted Rymer to set up the classes on a proper, more organised

basis. Satchel said, “It will only take two hours on a Saturday morning… It will be a

breeze.”13 In reality, Rymer needed to take care of many matters such as staffing issues and

student enquiries before and after the classes, and the working hours were far longer than two

hours on a Saturday morning.

Rymer had taught at various schools in Melbourne since 1948. He had studied languages, but

he was not a language teacher; Geography and Commercial Economics were his specialities.

Rymer had taught at schools with high migrant populations, and he understood the issues that

faced migrant students. He remembers that language and cultural differences caused

enormous difficulties at school for his students: “The students would be highly stressed. They

11 Proctor and Campbell 2014, p. 209. 12 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 24 February 1965, p. 61. 13 Interview with Burnie Rymer, 2013.


128

had great difficulty in understanding the English in the textbooks.”14 These students often

faced problems at home as well: “One student had trouble understanding his mother in the

Greek language and also with his father, who came from Macedonia. He said they couldn't

converse with each other. And this made the whole situation very stressful.”15

In 1966, when the Saturday classes were again advertised in The Education Gazette and

Teachers’ Aid, they were given a name for the first time: “Saturday School of Languages”.16

Tuition fees were listed in the newly adopted decimal currency. For students and teachers of

government schools, tuition would be free of charge provided they brought a note from their

Principal. Others would be charged a fee of $7.50 per half year for beginner’s and

intermediate level classes, or $9.75 per half year for leaving, advanced and matriculation

level classes.17

Rymer’s appointment as teacher in charge coincided with a period of rapid growth. This was

not just in the languages offered, but also in the number of student enrolments and the

number of centres involved. In Rymer’s period, there were a series of events that triggered

sudden growth in student numbers. The Education Department was willing to accommodate

and support this growth, but it brought many challenges for Rymer. As explained in this

chapter, the Education Department made changes to the school’s operations in order to

maintain control.

In January 1966, officials in the Department acknowledged that the workload was becoming

impossible for one teacher alone to manage. That year, there were 14 classes at University

High School and 10 at Errol Street in North Melbourne.18 “During 1965 Mr Rymer acted as

teacher in charge of both but the amount of work involved has now reached such proportions

that it is felt that someone should be in charge at each centre.” 19 It was decided that Rymer

would be in charge overall, as well as supervisor at University High School.20 Mr Brian

14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 27 January 1966, p. 31. 17 References to currency throughout this period are inconsistent at times. This reflects the process of conversion to decimal currency, which was officially adopted in February 1966. See Reserve Bank of Australia, ‘The Reserve Bank and Reform of the Currency: 1960–1988’, Retrieved 12 November 2014, http://www.rba.gov.au/Museum/Displays/1960_1988_rba_and_reform_of_the_currency/decimal_currency.html 18 Education Department, 9 February 1966, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971. 19 Education Department, 27 January 1966, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971. 20 Personal communication with Burnie Rymer, 2014.


129

Warren would be in charge at Errol Street primary school in North Melbourne. Both would

be paid 90 shillings per session.21

Despite the fact that Rymer now shared the supervision of the classes with Warren, day-to-

day administrative matters did not always go smoothly. Towards the end of 1968, officials in

the Education Department noted that many instructors at the Saturday School of Languages

were inaccurate in their record keeping, causing problems in the accounting and auditing

branches of the Education Department. One official explained, “Many of our instructors in

the S.S.L. are not teachers. As a result of this they are less careful”.22 Rymer and the

Assistant Director of Secondary Education would brief instructors on these matters.23

It was true that not all of the instructors at the Saturday School of Languages were fully

qualified teachers. As Rymer recalls, for some of the languages, it was simply not possible to

find qualified people. “We just advertised and asked people to spread the word.”24 The

school was also assisted by the Teacher Registration Board which exercised a degree of

flexibility: “if the requirements of the teacher Registration Board were strictly to be applied,

many of our classes could not operate.”25

5.1.2 A gradual shift in the language teaching establishment

Towards the end of the 1960s, an interest in more diverse languages was slowly beginning to

grow in Victoria. In his annual report for the year 1966-1967, Ron Reed, the Director of

Secondary Education, wrote: “Probably the most significant development in the presentation

of modern foreign languages in secondary schools in the last two years is the broadening of

the field of instruction to include languages other than the traditional French.”26 By 1969,

there were signs that Latin was beginning to decline in popularity in the mainstream

government school system, as not as many students chose it at senior secondary level.

Indonesian was gaining momentum, as it was taught in sixteen government high schools. It

was to be accredited as an examinable subject for leaving from 1968. Italian was being taught

21 Education Department, 7 February 1966, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971. 22 Secondary Inspector, 25 October 1968, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971. 23 Ibid. 24 Interview with Burnie Rymer, 2013. 25 S Kesarik, 4 March 1975, VSL archives. 26 Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1966 – 1967, p. 41.


130

in eight, while Japanese, Russian and Modern Greek were each being taught in two high

schools. 27 In 1968, Reed gave the Saturday School of Languages a rare nod of

acknowledgement when he reported that the academic results obtained by the students there

were pleasing, especially at the matriculation level.28

Around this time, there was also a widespread shift in the accepted teaching methodologies

for languages. The grammar translation method was now giving way to what was called the

oral-aural method. This emphasis on speaking and listening brought the need for investment

in audio-lingual and audio-visual technologies in schools. The Director of Secondary

Education stated: “It is hoped that before long a tape recorder can be made available for the

sole use of each language faculty in the state.”29

5.1.3 The establishment of Modern Greek at the Saturday School of Modern Languages (SSML)

At the start of the 1971 academic year, the Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid advertised

the classes under the new heading “Saturday School of Modern Languages” (SSML).30 This

new name reflected the trend that was happening at that time for languages to be named

“modern”, (as opposed to “classical”).

In 1971, the school renewed its programs in Modern Greek. The Modern Greek classes that

had been taught on Saturday mornings at University High School were overcrowded and

those at Fitzroy High School had been of an “elementary standard” and were considered

“unsustainable” due to their location and “certain other factors”.31 Mr Con Papadopoulos was

instrumental in the re-establishment of the language at the school’s newest centre, Oakleigh

Primary School. These classes came about after discussions within Melbourne’s Greek

speaking community. The Victorian Universities and Schools Examinations Board (VUSEB)

had announced that Modern Greek was to be approved as an HSC subject from 1973. It was

clear that Modern Greek was going to be the largest single enrolment group for 1971.32

27 Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1968 – 1969, p. 41-42. 28 Ibid, p. 50. 29 Ibid. 30 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 29 January 1971, p. 19. 31 B Rymer, 19 August 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949-1971. 32 Ibid.


131

When Papadopoulos first met Mr. Arthur Moy, the Assistant Director of Education, to

discuss the Modern Greek classes, Moy was sceptical that there would be adequate student

demand.33 But Papadopoulos knew that there was demand because many of the students

were already attending Modern Greek classes that were run by the local Greek orthodox

churches. The study of Modern Greek was important to the community not just for cultural

reasons, but because without it, it was impossible to understand the liturgy. But

Papadopoulos believed that the subject should be taught in the government school system: “If

the subject is taught as an official subject of the curriculum, that’s the best way.”34

During the school holidays, Papadopoulos generated a long list of interested students, and

when he showed it to Moy, he was astounded. “He didn’t expect that there would be such a

great demand.”35 To find teachers, Papadopoulos consulted the Classified Roll from the

Education Department. He then developed courses in Modern Greek for each year level. He

also wrote, typed and duplicated circulars, memos and instructions to students. Papadopoulos

visited foreign language bookshops and placed orders for Greek textbooks that were suitable

for the Australian context.

Some have criticised the Education Department for the way that it appeared to play a passive

role in the establishment of Modern Greek. “It seems to me to have acted like the proverbial

coy maiden, granting favours graciously and rarely… Certainly the Department did not lead,

organize and guide the classes, as it had, as is evidenced by its letters to the major

metropolitan High Schools in the nineteen thirties.” 36

5.1.4 A review of remuneration for teachers in charge

At Rymer’s suggestion, Papadopoulos kept a record of the hours he worked in setting up the

Modern Greek program. He put in a claim to the Education Department, in the hope that he

might be paid. The Teachers’ Tribunal, however, appeared wary of such claims, and more

claims in the future, considering the school was in a phase of growth.37 The Assistant

33 Interview with Con Papadopoulos, 2013. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Kleinhenz 1989, p. 8. 37 J Kennedy, 20 May 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 - 1971.


132

Director-General of Education considered the claim “excessive” and it was rejected.38

Papadopoulos made an appeal to the Tribunal and it was eventually resolved to pay his

claims in full.39

As a result, discussions took place about the way that the Headmaster and the Assistants at

the Saturday School of Languages should be remunerated. The Assistant Director-General of

Education acknowledged that the school was expanding and recommended that changes be

made.40 The Teachers’ Tribunal decided that the Headmaster would be paid $1,845 per

annum. The three Assistants would be paid a flat rate of $1,230 per annum. These payments

were to be made on a pro rata basis at the end of each school term. Furthermore, the Tribunal

recommended that clerical staff be employed at each centre. 41

5.1.5 Modern Greek triggers a domino effect

The establishment of the Centre of Modern Greek at Oakleigh Primary School effectively

opened the door to subsequent migrant language groups seeking language maintenance

programs for their children. The rapid introduction of many new European language

programs followed throughout the early 1970s. As Rymer recalls, it seemed to trigger a

domino effect. Calls for the introduction of many other languages came swiftly:

As soon as there was an approach made by a teacher that there might have been a need for it [a new language], and we advertised it, it just took off. I thought, “If it’s fair enough to advertise Modern Greek, it’s fair enough to advertise many of the other languages. 42

Senior Education Department officials were positive when it came to Rymer’s applications

for expansion into other languages and they gave the school a great deal of support: “I made

the proposition to them, and it was accepted without question. I wasn't told that there would

be a budget limitation on employing the staff, or any financial problems. They just gave it the

go-ahead. I just went on with hiring everyone.”43

38 T Moore, 26 May 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 - 1971. 39 A Le Clerc, 22 September 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971. 40 T Moore, 26 May 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 - 1971. 41 J Kennedy, 12 August 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 - 1971. 42 Interview with Burnie Rymer, 2013. 43 Ibid.


133

In 1971, Lithuanian was added, bringing the list of languages to nine. Lindsay Thompson, the

then Minister for Education, explained to the Victorian Parliament that he expected more

languages to be offered at the school in the near future “to maintain the communication

between children and parents, and to provide a certifiable standard of attainment in the

subject, which may assist in obtaining employment”. 44

Many requests for new languages came directly from members of migrant communities

themselves. Towards the end of 1971, after discussions with the Hungarian Consul-General, a

request was made for the introduction of Hungarian. The Secretary of the Education

Department responded by outlining the conditions that needed to be met; namely that student

demand must be evident and that suitable teaching staff must be available.45 Early in 1972,

the Hungarian Consul-General, together with Moy, the Assistant Director, visited on a

Saturday morning at University High School to make a presentation of reference books.46

However the Education Department came under fire for the way in which the language was

established. The classes were discontinued and their re-establishment became a protracted

process. Hungarian was affected by competing political interests among certain groups. This

would not be the last time that the competing political interests within national groups would

be played out within the school. This will be explained in greater detail in Chapter 7.

In 1972, a request was made for the introduction of the Polish language. The President of the

Polish Organizations of Victoria wrote to Thompson:

There are about 25,500 people of Polish extraction residing in Victoria, from which some 1120 (4.48%) are children in the school age. Considering that the second and third generation are at the age of having their own children… we feel that the introduction of the Polish language will be of value from the state and parents’ view point.47

He also cited the recent introduction of other languages to back his case. Thompson’s

response was supportive:

I shall be happy to sponsor the introduction of the Polish language into the Saturday School of Languages on the same terms as those applying to the other languages named in your letter. National groups wishing to have their languages taught on Saturday mornings are

44 L Thompson, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 30 March 1971, Volume 302, pages 4097-5434, p. 4398. 45 F Szentessy, 26 December 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971, Secretary of the Education Department, 7 January 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 - 1971. 46 B Rymer, 16 February 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 - 1973. 47 M Bialowieyski, 9 February 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 - 1973.


134

expected to give evidence of substantial demand and of their ability and willingness to secure the necessary trained teachers who are also fluent speakers of the language.48

Several months later, a request was made for the introduction of Turkish. This time, the

approach was made by the Victorian Association for the Teaching of English as a Foreign

Language. The Treasurer, suggested that the benefit of the inclusion of Turkish would be

twofold: “A number of teachers, policemen, and interpreters are interested in learning

Turkish, in order to be able to help with the Turkish migrants. On the other hand, a lot of

Turkish students will benefit from this course.”49 The honourable secretary also wrote to

support the move, along similar lines: “Our members feel that nothing but good could come

of the attempt to understand something of the language and cultural background of these

people, who too often feel isolated in a community that seems to show no interest in them.”50

The Consul for Turkey threw his support behind the course, stating, “This type of course will

not only benefit Australians but also Turkish students who would like to strengthen and

improve their English.”51

This request was made with several aims in mind: to provide English-speaking Australians

with an opportunity to learn the Turkish language and culture in the hope they may interact

with newly arrived Turkish migrants, as well as benefitting Turkish speaking students

themselves. But by now it was already clear that the government was willing to support the

introduction of languages that were being spoken by migrant groups for the purpose of

language maintenance. The Secretary of the Education Department replied to the Association

and outlined the standard conditions that needed to be met for the classes to go ahead.52

Also in 1972, an application was made for the introduction of the Czech language. Mr. J.

Berka, who represented the Czech community, supported the move. He wrote of the benefits

that this would bring to the children of Czech migrants: “Although they all speak Czech at

home their expressions rarely exceed a simple and very restricted basic vocabulary… Some

enlightenment and awakening of interest… would also make these students better citizens of

48 L Thompson, 21 February 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 - 1973. 49 M Refet, 30 July 1972, VSL archives. 50 J Hunter, 10 August 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 51 M Ahmed, 14 October 1972, VSL archives. 52 V Scully, 17 August 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973.


135

this country.”53 The school added Czech to the list of languages offered in 1973, along with

Turkish, Polish and Slovak, bringing the total languages to sixteen. 54

In the early 1970s, there were some languages that were offered, but were discontinued

because they struggled to attract large enough student enrolments. Bengali and Swahili were

offered but there were no applicants.55 In 1972, Icelandic and Swedish were offered but were

omitted from the school’s annual advertisement in the following year. 56 The 1974

advertisement included no mention of Slovak, which had also presumably been discontinued

for the same reasons.57 The main two criteria for the introduction of a new language were an

adequate demand from students and the availability of suitable instructors.

It was not uncommon for university linguistics departments to support the introduction of

new languages. This had been the pattern for the establishment of many new languages since

Inagaki had assisted with the establishment of Japanese in 1935. In mid-1974, Mr Zaijda at

Monash University approached the school, regarding the introduction of Ukrainian.58 These

discussions were supported by Professor Marvan as Chairman of the Department of Russian

at Monash University.59 Towards the end of 1974, Marvan and the Serbo-Croatian Standing

Committee at Monash University approached the school again, in regard to establishing the

Serbo-Croatian language at the SSML.60

5.1.6 Lines are again drawn

Perhaps buoyed by the rapid momentum of the diversification of languages being introduced,

Rymer made applications in 1971 and again in early 1972, for permission for the school to

establish French and German. These were languages that had been taught in mainstream

schools for decades. He argued that there was a lot of interest from students who were unable

to study those languages in their schools because they were not being offered or because of

53 J Berka, 20 November 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 54 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Victoria, 31 January 1973, p. 16. 55 L Thompson, 30 March 1971, p. 4398. 56 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 29 January 1972, p. 21. 57 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 24 January 1974, p. 57. 58 E Hamer, 9 August 1974, VSL archives. 59 J Marvan, 30 July 1974, VSL archives. 60 J Marvan, 31 October 1974, VSL archives.


136

other factors.61 Rymer argued: “it is not likely to attract great numbers and affect adversely

the teaching of German in the schools.”62 However this idea represented a fundamental

change in the objective of the school. Expanding into French and German meant that the

school’s role would be going beyond its original mandate and encroaching into languages

that were already being delivered by the mainstream. These requests were refused.63 In 1974,

the question of French and German was again revisited: “we have been swamped with

requests for tuition in both French and German at all levels.”64 The Department again

refused: “It has not been policy to offer languages at the Saturday morning classes which

have been widely available in the school curriculum.”65 German was added to the list of

language offered at the school in 1975, and French was eventually added in 1978.

Unfortunately there is very little remaining historical evidence about these decisions.

In 1971, Thompson, the Minister for Education, reiterated the rationale for the school: “If

there is a demand for a language by high school or technical school students which cannot be

met because of the small number of applicants in each school or the lack of teaching staff,

e.g., Japanese, their needs are catered for by the Saturday School of Modern Languages”.66

The school’s purpose had not changed since its establishment in 1935. Its role was still to

provide language education in the languages that could not be taught in the mainstream

system.

As long as the lines in language programs could neatly be drawn between the mainstream

school system and the Saturday classes in this way, the Education Department was keen to

promote its support for migrant language programs. In 1972, Mr. A.E Schruhm, the Director

of Secondary Education, explained the rationale for supporting the introduction of languages

spoken by the migrant communities:

The majority of the students in the European language classes are first or second generation children of migrant families who wish to study the language of their forbears. The Education Department considers that provision of opportunity for them to study these languages assists their

61 B Rymer, 24 August 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971. 62 B Rymer, 15 February 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 63 A Moy, 17 April 1973, VSL archives. 64 E Hamer, 15 March 1974, VSL archives. 65 R Prowse, 26 March 1974, VSL archives. 66 L Thompson, 30 March 1971, pp. 4397-4398.


137

assimilation into the Australian community by increasing their esteem for their own cultural heritage.67

This comment can be seen as a clear sign that the government wished to distance itself from

the assimilationist policies of the past. The era when it was believed that languages would

inhibit assimilation and lead to national groups and social division was now over.68

Yet the interest in “community’ languages around this time was not limited to the Saturday

classes. By 1974, 21 Victorian government high schools offered Italian and 7 offered Modern

Greek. Other migrant languages were also starting to be taught in increasing numbers in

mainstream schools. Serbo-Croatian was being taught at Collingwood High School and

Turkish was being taught at two high schools.69 Yet Rymer recalls that there were many

languages that were spoken by smaller numbers of students, and that trying to cater to all of

those different languages would be very onerous: “I don’t think anything was going on in

other schools with regard to these [smaller] languages, because you might have 10 or 15

students who wanted to study a language and they didn't have the capacity in the school to

teach that. For example, for Slovak or Czech, or Swahili, there was just no scope.”70

5.1.7 Regulations for new languages are set down

As a result of the difficulties with the attempt to introduce Hungarian, Moy decided that it

was necessary to set down some regulations for the establishment of new languages. In April

1972, he made the following considerations. He stated:

a). the need to guard against problems which could arise from the existence of factional interests within national groups… b). the need to have a firm policy in dealing with other requests, such as those from organizations of national groups for the Department to sponsor classes in non-Departmental premises using teachers and courses not approved by the Education Department. 71

In order to achieve these aims, he drew up a list of eight rules for the Saturday classes, which

were published in the Education Gazette and Teacher’s Aid.72 All classes needed to be

conducted in Education Department schools under the supervision of the Head Teacher and

67 Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1971 – 1972, p. 32. 68 Ozolins 1993, p. 70. 69 L Thompson, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 12 November 1974, vol. 319, p. 2005. 70 Interview with Burnie Rymer, 2013 71 Education Department, 14 April 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 - 1973. 72 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 23 June 1972, p. 366.


138

all decisions about staff selection were to be made by the Head Teacher. English translations

of courses of study must be prepared and given to the Head Teacher, who had the discretion

to check teaching materials and literature to be used in class. Where new languages were to

be introduced, detailed courses for those languages had to be provided to the Head Teacher

six months ahead of their commencement for approval. New languages would only be

approved if evidence of substantial student demand could be produced.73

Now that the Department had implemented its new set of regulations, it made the decision to

defer the application to introduce the Polish language in 1973. Minister Thompson argued

that the Polish syllabus was not adequately prepared, but a “satisfactory” syllabus would be

reconsidered.74 Rymer noted that the original Polish syllabus was heavily focused on political

and historical content, rather than on linguistic elements.75

5.1.8 Increases in student enrolments puts pressure on centres

In 1971, the University High School centre was by far the largest centre, holding 28 classes.76

There, every classroom had to be used to accommodate the large number of students.77 In

some languages such as Japanese, Dutch, and Mandarin Chinese, where the enrolment

numbers were fairly low, it was necessary to combine year levels into single classes.78

By 1972, the student numbers had grown considerably. There was a total of 1,670 students

across three centres and there was a total of 84 staff.79 Finding adequate rooms for the classes

was still proving a challenge. There was an opportunity to relieve the pressure and to shift the

Latvian classes to Latvian House. After an inspection of the premises, Mr T. J. Moore,

Assistant Director General, approved the shift, provided the Education Department did not

incur any liabilities in relation to the use of the premises.80 The classes remained there for

several years. In later years, it would become clear that the decision to allow Latvian to be

taught on non-Departmental premises had set a problematic precedent. Other groups made

73 Ibid. 74 L Thompson, 27 October 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 75 B Rymer, 10 April 1972, VSL archives. 76 L Thompson, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 30 March 1971. 77 B Rymer, 24 August 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971. 78 L Thompson, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 30 March 1971. 79 Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1971 – 1972, p. 32 80 B Rymer, October 1971, VSL Archives.


139

requests for the SSML to “take over” their community or church run language classes. These

were refused on the grounds that all classes were to be held in the classrooms of departmental

schools.81

5.1.9 The diverse student population

It was not only Modern Greek that was heavily populated with students with a background in

the language. By 1971, the majority of students enrolled in the senior Italian classes at

Brunswick High School had Italian sounding names such as Cavallaro, Brugaletta, Cimino,

Russo and so on.82 These students achieved good marks: “Usually the students would work

very hard. There was a high level of expectation on the part of the migrant communities.”83

Rymer recalls that these high expectations could also put pressure on teachers as well: “One

teacher failed several students at a more senior level, and she was in some trouble [from the

community]. There was pressure on me to intervene and pass the students and I said, ‘Well

no, I can't do that.’ She was well qualified, and a very competent teacher.”84

However, there was also a significant proportion of adults and school leavers enrolled and

many were English background speaking students. Their reasons were varied: “many are

interested in gaining academic qualifications, others in preparing for overseas travel. Some

Australians who have married migrants learn the appropriate language in order to improve

their communication with their respective spouses. In many cases the motive is self-

improvement”.85 Many of them managed to achieve high academic marks despite not having

a background understanding of the language: “Some of the students of Russian weren't native

Russians at all. One year, 50 per cent of the HSC Russian class got Honours. And many

people who weren’t Italian were doing Italian for various reasons, and they were qualifying

for HSC in one year, so it was quite impressive, as there was one 3 hour class each week.”86

Yet the fact that the school enrolled adults as well as school children created problems for the

way the school was understood. In 1969 Mr John Rossiter, the Minister of Labour and

81 B Rymer, 11 November 1973, VSL archives. 82 B Warren, 9 November 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 - 1971. 83 Interview with Burnie Rymer, 2013. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid.


140

Industry, had described the work of the Saturday morning classes to the Victorian Parliament

with one caveat: “these classes include a substantial number of adults and therefore cannot be

regarded as part of the secondary school structure”.87

5.1.10 Staffing and pay difficulties

In 1972, teaching staff faced difficulties, namely, the problem of finding suitable teaching

materials, and the workload of preparing the classes: “not only for differential teaching, but

for completion of a satisfactory course of study in 34 two-hour sessions.” There were other

issues: “The varying standards of linguistic development in the native languages of students,

together with the problem of those who have no knowledge of the language for which they

have enrolled presents a challenge of considerable magnitude for the instructors.88

In 1973 Rymer made applications for increases in the pay rates for the instructors. He

recommended that they be paid for a total of four hours to account for lesson preparation and

marking. This would “restore the status quo and facilitate also the engagement of suitably

trained/qualified/dedicated staff. Only five replies were received last year to advertisements

in the Gazette and it has been increasingly difficult to recruit staff.” 89 Rymer made a separate

application for the pay of H.S.C. instructors to be raised. He explained that many instructors

had a “heavy burden” of work, due to the lack of an existing preceding course up to Form

Four, unlike the well-established languages such as French and German. He also cited

languages that were undergoing evolution and modification, such as Indonesian. “The…

remuneration for instructors at this school is well below a reasonable return for the obvious

sacrifices made by dedicated staff, the percentage of qualified secondary staff having dropped

in recent years until less than half are in this category, a matter which can pose problems in

the long run.”90

One language that was proving most difficult to staff was Japanese. In 1974, there was an

increasing interest in Japanese among students who had returned to Australia after spending

time in Japan on the Rotary Exchange Program. One frustrated student of the Saturday

87 J Rossiter, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 23 October 1969, vol. 296, p. 1147. 88 SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages Annual Report 1972’, VSL archives. 89 B Rymer, 7 September 1973, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 - 1973, emphasis in original. 90 Ibid.


141

classes wrote to his local member of parliament, complaining that the Japanese classes were

short staffed. In addition, the Education Department had introduced a ruling that classes with

fewer than ten enrolments would not be offered, and as a result, there were signs that

Japanese classes would be abandoned. The Education Minister was asked to examine the

matter.91

5.1.11 Bridging the middle school gap brings further growth

A further event that prompted rapid growth was the establishment of language classes at

middle school levels. Nineteen seventy four was the first year that younger students were

eligible to enrol.92 In previous years, only students in Form Three (Year Nine) or above were

eligible. As Rymer recalls, there was a great need for classes at these levels:

Many of the students were coming from [community language] schools such as Latvian in St Kilda, Lithuanian in Errol Street North Melbourne, and Polish over in the Footscray area. But they only went to Grade Six. But the Saturday classes started at Year Nine so I put up a proposition that this gap should be bridged by starting the classes at Year Seven. Now, the situation just suddenly snowballed. There was a huge increase in student enrolment. As soon as I bridged that gap, and as soon as they [students] realised they would be able to do matriculation, the thing just absolutely multiplied.93

For Rymer, however, the growth of the classes had a significant impact on his workload. He

recommended that a half-time headmaster be appointed, because his job had exceeded the

workload of an after-hours position.94

5.1.12 A new headmaster and a heavy workload

In January 1974, Mr Emile P. Hamer replaced Rymer as Acting Headmaster of the SSML. A

year later, he was replaced by a new headmaster, Mr Stefan Kesarik. Like Rymer, Kesarik

was faced with a rapidly growing school and workload. In 1975, the total number of

languages offered reached nineteen, with the addition of Ukrainian, Bulgarian and finally,

after years of opposition, German. Serbo-Croatian was also added to the list of languages

91 C Edmunds, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 23 April 1974, vol. 317, p. 4698. 92 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Victoria, 24 January 1974, p. 57. 93 Interview with Burnie Rymer, 2013. 94 Personal communication with Burnie Rymer, 2014.


142

offered. Kesarik had enormous difficulty finding suitable teachers for Serbo-Croatian. “It

became obvious on the first day that two teachers were needed. It took nearly a whole week

of telephoning and enquiring before a second teacher was found. The enrolments kept

growing and in the third week I had to go through the same procedure again to find a third

teacher. Similar difficulties were experienced in Czech.”95 That year, enrolments in Modern

Greek were very high, with 1,168 students enrolled.96 The total number of students for the

whole school had now reached 3,397 with 123 instructors.97

A few months into his new role, Kesarik wrote to the Department about the heavy workload

and the conditions of the position:

The present 0.3 time fraction was set a few years ago when the Headmaster used to be paid extra for his services and the enrolments were not much over 1,000. Since then they have grown in excess of 3,000... To be able to cope with the ever increasing volume of administrative, planning and counselling work, it is necessary that the headmaster’s position be made a full-time one.98

In a less formal letter to Hector Gallagher, the Assistant Director of Secondary Education,

Kesarik added that the Tribunal had “grossly underestimated the time needed for the efficient

running of this school.”99 He estimated that considering that the SSML only operated on a

Saturday morning, it would be equivalent to running a “normal” school of around 300

students and 13 staff. “One can imagine the outcry if a Principal were asked to run the school

on 0.3 time fraction. And yet, this in many ways is my own position. Such a Principal at least

would have a secretary.” Gallagher responded by recommending to the Tribunal that from

1976, the time allocation be increased to 0.6 to meet the heavy workload associated with

running the school.100 Despite this increase, Kesarik’s workload continued to be a problem.

Several years later, he again appealed to the Department: “I… [have] the feeling I am

fighting a many headed monster, whose new heads (Centres) keep springing up year after

year.”101

95 S Kesarik, 8 July 1975, VSL archives. 96 L Thompson, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 1 October 1975, vol. 323, p. 7038. 97 SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages, Gross Enrolments – 1975’, VSL archives. 98 S Kesarik, 8 July 1975, VSL archives. 99 Ibid. 100 H Gallagher, no date, VSL archives. 101 Merlino 1988, p. 16.


143

5.1.13 The abolition of fees doubles student enrolments

Another event that dramatically increased student enrolments was the abolition of fees. In

1975, the Education Department decided that no fees would be charged for students from

non-government schools, provided that they could produce a letter from their headmaster

stating that the language was not already offered in their day school. The Education

Department was keen to ensure that language provision at the SSML did not encroach on the

mainstream system. Adult students and teachers learning a language were also exempt from

fees. Instead, a $2 service fee for all students was introduced.102 Mr. R.E. Francis, Director of

Secondary Education, reported on the dramatic affect on the school:

The recent abolition of fees… has contributed to the 55 per cent increase in enrolments to over 3300 students, distributed among six localities and studying twenty languages at levels ranging from Form 1 to Form 6. Most of this growth is to be explained, however, in terms of ethnic pressure, since 2000 of the enrolments are in either Modern Greek or Italian, and reflect the determination of those groups to maintain a cultural identity.103

One scholar saw Francis’ final sentence about the determination of the ethnic groups as a sign

of resignation on the part of the Education Department:

It is almost as if he is throwing his hands in the air and saying “Don’t blame me”! For what, after all, could the bureaucrats do? “Multiculturalism” was replacing “assimilation” as political philosophy and conventional wisdom, “migrants” and “New Australians” had metamorphosized into “ethnic communities” and were nothing if not pushy, the Education Department itself was rocking on its conservative foundations… The easiest thing was to give in, and hope that it might all go away one day.104

Due to the 55 per cent increase in enrolments, the classes were full to capacity and students

were often turned away. Kesarik requested two new centres in 1976 to accommodate the

growing demand. He also reported that the school’s retention rate was very high at around 80

per cent, due to the fact that many students were also day students at the centres they attended

on Saturdays and that “pressure is applied at home for them to attend”.105 Towards the end of

1975, the Education Minister approved the application to establish two new centres at

102 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 30 January 1976, p. 9. 103 Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1974 – 1975, p. 29 104 Kleinhenz 1989, p. 9. 105 SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages Headmaster’s Mid-year Report, 20 July 1975’, VSL archives.


144

Maribyrnong High School and Box Hill High School.106 A press release stated: “The

Saturday School of Modern Languages is a unique organisation in that it is the only school of

its kind in Australia offering qualifying courses in almost any foreign language not normally

available in schools.”107

Towards the end of 1976, a notice was published that sought the co-operation of School

Principals of day schools to take into consideration the certificates of achievement that were

issued by the SSML. Where one of their students had received a certificate or statement of

results from the SSML, it should be entered on to the student’s report cards by the day

school.108

5.1.14 High School Certificate accreditation adds to the snowball effect

From 1973 onwards, community languages gained a permanent foothold in the Victorian

education system with their accreditation as matriculation subjects. This was seen as a sign of

a new openness towards community languages and it was facilitated by the universities’

surrender of control of the public examinations system.109 Between 1972 and 1978, the

traditional languages were joined by newcomers such as “Modern Greek in 1973; Czech,

Latvian Polish, Serbo-Croatian and Ukrainian in 1975; and Hungarian and Turkish in

1976”.110 Similar but slower developments occurred in NSW and South Australia.

In the context of the SSML, the accreditation of many languages as H.S.C. subjects resulted

in a dramatic expansion of the school. Rymer believes that a turning point occurred after

Modern Greek was approved as an HSC subject. “This had a cumulative, snowball effect.

The other languages, they wanted to be able to matriculate. There was enormous pressure in

the background from the migrant community to do this.” Being able to complete HSC level

in a language was of great importance to people in those migrant groups. “It gave them much

more status being able to get a qualification in their language. It was very valuable.”111

106 H Gallagher, 21 October 1975, VSL archives. 107 SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages’, press release, 17 November 1975, VSL archives. 108 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 5 November 1976, p. 551. 109 Clyne 1991, p. 218. 110 Ozolins 1993, p. 132. 111 Interview with Burnie Rymer, 2013.


145

By 1975, many of the languages that were being taught at the school had been accredited as

H.S.C. subjects. These were Czech, Dutch, German, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese,

Latvian, Lithuanian, Mandarin Chinese, Modern Greek, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian,

Spanish and Ukrainian. Arabic, which was taught at the school for the first time in 1975, was

not an HSC subject. Neither was Bulgarian and Turkish.112

In late 1976, Turkish was accredited as an H.S.C. subject.113 This was of great importance to

the Turkish speaking community. As one student recalls: “It meant that we were accepted,

that we were official, it opened up job opportunities. Strangely, it made us feel like we

belonged to Australia. It felt like, “we’re accepted, this country accepts our language”. It felt

fantastic.”114

The snowball effect also came from language groups that approached the SSML as a way to

gain access to the framework and structure necessary for having their language accredited at

HSC level. This was the case for Slovenian, which was established at the SSML for the first

time in 1977.115 Prior to that time, Slovenian had been taught at Sunday School classes at the

Slovenian Religious and Cultural Centre in Kew. It had not been taught anywhere in the

mainstream education system in Victoria and in 1976, there was a class of Year 11 students

who wished to complete H.S.C. Slovenian. There needed to be a way for the language to gain

HSC accreditation and for the senior student cohort to undertake HSC studies in the language.

Evidence suggests that there was a very strong personal driver in the introduction of

Slovenian at the SSML, which was largely the result of the work of one teacher, Mrs

Aleksandra Ceferin, a qualified teacher of German and English. The accreditation of

Slovenian as an HSC subject was of great importance because it was a matter of pride: “The

newly arrived immigrants… wanted the language to be valued by their children, and that

meant accreditation and points as one of their HSC subjects.”116 Ceferin approached the

SSML with a view to having the language established at the school: “I believed that being

taught formally within the secondary school system was the way to proceed… SSML was a

state school, which meant that it ensured a regulated study program with appropriate

112 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 7 November 1975, p. 543. 113 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 5 November 1976, p. 551. 114 Interview with Leyla Altinkaya, 2013 115 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 27 January 1977, p. 37. 116 Personal communication with Aleksandra Ceferin, 2013.


146

language study materials, leading up to the HSC. It also meant that the students would take it

seriously.”117

Ceferin met with Mr David Cockroft at University High School who outlined the

requirements that needed to be fulfilled. He also advised her that students would not be able

to use textbooks that contained communist content and symbols. It was difficult to find

politically neutral textbooks, and they had to be sourced from Trieste and from America. In

1976, Ceferin founded the Slovenian Teachers Association of Victoria. The intention was to

provide support for Slovenian language classes to be established at the SSML in the

following year.

The establishment of Slovenian was considered a historic event: “Slovenian language was an

elective accredited school subject – for the first time in the English speaking world.” 118

There were a total of 145 students enrolled.119 The process of accreditation of Slovenian at

HSC level faced delays due to the educational reform that was taking place at secondary level

in Victoria. The new Victorian Institute of Secondary Education (VISE) had been established

under the Victorian Institute of Secondary Education Act 1976. 120 In the meantime,

Slovenian had also been introduced at the newly established Saturday School of Community

languages in Sydney. 121 It was not until late 1980 that the accreditation process for HSC

Slovenian in Victoria was finalised.

The first group of students to complete HSC Slovenian was in 1981. One student who was in

that first group of HSC students reflected on the experience: “In those days, being from a

‘New Australian’ background had its drawbacks, even though our lives were richer through

diversity. Nowadays the ability to move between cultures, assimilate and meld riches typical

of each gives me an advantage I treasure almost daily.”122

117 Ibid. 118 Ceferin 2003, p. 45. 119 Interview with Aleksandra Ceferin, 2013. 120 Research Data Australia ‘Victorian Institute of Secondary Education’, Accessed 26 June 2014, available at: http://researchdata.ands.org.au/victorian-institute-of-secondary-education 121 Ceferin, A & Institute for Slovenian Studies of Victoria 2003, p. 45. 122 Ceferin 2003, p. 109.


147

5.1.15 The community languages movement

Around this time, there was an increasing understanding about the importance of “community

languages” in Victoria. In 1976, The Report on Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools

was published. It reported on a 1974 survey of language education programs that found that

there were as many as 50,000 students studying at ethnic schools. The report recognised that

the ethnic schools delivered a vital function that mainstream schools could not manage.123 In

response to this report, the member for Footscray, Mr Robert Fordham, presented a petition

from the citizens of Victoria. They requested that action be taken to introduce languages into

the primary, high and technical schools of the state, “in recognition of Australia’s

multicultural and multilingual character”. 124 The petitioners also requested “All school

children, irrespective of language background, be given the opportunity to learn several of the

community languages spoken in Australia.”125

Yet it was not only alternative providers that were delivering courses in “community”

languages. By the end of 1976, there were many government high schools that were teaching

the same languages as the SSML. Modern Greek was being taught at 16 high schools and

Italian at 47 high schools. Other languages such as Spanish and Turkish were being taught at

7 and 3 high schools respectively. By this time, languages had also started to be taught in

Victorian primary schools for the first time. There were a small number of primary schools

that had started teaching Modern Greek, Italian, Spanish and Turkish.126

Unlike in previous decades, when the school was barely mentioned, the Education

Department now enthusiastically acknowledged the work of the school, even highlighting its

longevity and significance: “Saturday language classes have been successfully operated by

the Department for more than 50 years and the concept is now being adopted by other

states.”127

The community languages movement also began to have an impact on the language teaching

establishment in Victoria. In 1977, in a proposed revision of its statement of policy, the

123 Ozolins 1993, p. 137-8. 124 R Fordham, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 27 October 1977, vol. 334, p. 10874. 125 Ibid. 126 Minister of Education, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 8 March 1977, vol. 330, p. 6072. 127 Ibid.


148

Modern Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria (MLTAV) articulated its support for the

teaching of a diversity of languages.128 Yet Kesarik, who was ambitious for the school to

succeed, believed that the Association’s statement did not go far enough. Not only did he

suggest that the role of the SSML should be clearly articulated in the MLTAV’s policy, but

that the operations of the school should be expanded:

Students with an ethnic background should also be encouraged to undertake the study of the language of their family. Consideration should be given to expanding the facilities of the Saturday School of Modern Languages and the Correspondence School, in order to provide tuition for students of ethnic languages which they are unable to obtain in their own schools.129

In its updated statement of policy, the MLTAV did articulate support for students with an

ethnic background to study their family’s language. But it stopped short of mentioning the

SSML by name and instead suggested that tuition could be found “in other educational

institutions offering this language”.130 The MLTAV continued to be an active advocate for

language education and in 1983, appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on

Education and the Arts.131

5.1.16 Student reflections on language study and identity

Students who attended the school as a means to study their home language explain that the

experience had a positive impact on their identity as adolescents growing up in multicultural

Victoria. It also gave them stronger connections within their own ethnic communities. Ms

Leyla Altinkaya was one student who studied Year 7 Turkish in 1977 at Princes Hill High

School. She remembers her teacher, Ms Pembe Mutlu, with great fondness: “I remember

absolutely enjoying the classes. She was just lovely, entertaining, she kept us engaged.”132

She also enjoyed having the opportunity to mix with the students of other languages. Looking

back on her Turkish language education, Altinkaya believes it was extremely valuable: “It

kept me connected with the culture and with the language. I know that if I hadn't done that, I

128 MLTAV, ‘Proposed Revision of the MLTAV’s Statement of Policy’, ML Newsletter 64, April 1977, pp. 9-10, VSL archives. 129 S Kesarik, 24 May 1977, VSL archives. 130 MLTAV, ‘MLTAV - Statement of Policy, 1 November 1977’, VSL archives. 131 Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, 1984, p. 240. 132 Interview with Leyla Altinkaya, 2013.


149

would have faced a lot of difficulties with my Turkish. And the same within the Turkish

community.”133

Ms Venetia Kefalianos studied Modern Greek around this time at the Princes Hill Centre. She

remembers the atmosphere at the school: “The buzz of excitement amongst those students of

Greek at Princes Hill was energising.”134 Significantly, she believes the opportunity to study

there had a profound impact on the development of her identity as a young Greek Australian

in the late 1970s:

My social horizons just broke all the boundaries; I was finally in my element. Having gone to schools whose clients were strictly fair haired Anglo Saxons I finally felt totally at home, totally at ease with myself: after all I was not blond, or Catholic, or Anglican, I was an Australian Greek and was happy to be amongst my own kind!135

In her experience, the quality of teaching that she received at the SSML was excellent: “The

tuition given to us at the Saturday School of Modern Languages was decidedly exceptional.

Staff were qualified teachers and lessons were run in a professional and organized manner.

Our teachers had a program of study which was based on educational guidelines and a

curriculum was in place.”136

5.1.17 Defining the student body

In 1979, the SSML diversified its list of languages yet again to include Maltese, bring the

number of languages offered to twenty.137 In total, there were 5,100 students enrolled. That

year, due to increasing pressure from growing student numbers, it was decided that adults

would only be enrolled at Year 11 or Year 12 level. TAFE language courses that catered to

adults had recently been expanded.138 In 1978 there had been as many as 833 adult students.

There is limited evidence about the adult learners but it was reported that they enrolled in the

language courses “for reasons of further study, community involvement or travel.”139

133 Ibid. 134 Kefalianos V, ‘The halcyon years of the Saturday School of Modern Languages- my experiences as a student’, unpublished article, VSL archives. 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid. 137 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 26 January 1979, p. 5. 138 Report of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Special Education for the Year 1978 – 1979, p. 51. 139 Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Special Education for the Year 1977 – 1978, Education Department, Melbourne, 1978, p. 42.


150

Kesarik called the decision to abolish the adult classes a “retrograde step”.140 To compensate

for the decision, he proposed two new centres, one of which would offer beginner’s and

intermediate level tuition to adult students exclusively.141

Although the SSML wanted to limit the number of adults enrolled, it did not want to be seen

as just a school that catered exclusively for students who studied their “home” languages. Its

advertisement stated:

Although most of the students of the school are children of ethnic families who wish to qualify in the language spoken in their home, …courses for day-school students who do not possess any home background in the language they wish to study (e.g. Japanese, Indonesian, French, German, etc.) may also be formed, provided sufficient enrolment applications are received.142

The school had been catering to many students both with and without a “home background”

in the language for many years. This statement made it clear that the students who enrolled in

Japanese, Indonesian, French and German tended to be English background speakers.

5.1.18 Departmental acknowledgement of the school

By this time, the languages offered in the mainstream school system had diversified to

include “community” languages to some extent, but in reality, the only “community”

languages that were taught on a large scale were still limited to Italian and Modern Greek.143

In fact, Italian language teaching had reached its peak in the late 1970s. By this time, Italian

was taught in all of the universities and in many schools in both the private and government

systems.144

Where other languages were concerned, the mainstream schools still could not cope with the

sheer number of languages that were being spoken in the community. Lorna Hannan worked

on policy statements with the Victorian Advisory Committee for Migrant and Multicultural

Education. Suggesting that little had actually changed since Rymer’s time more than ten

years prior, she recalls: 140 S Kesarik, 19 July 1979, VSL archives. 141 Ibid. 142 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 26 January 1979, p. 5. 143 J Martin, The migrant presence: Australian responses, 1947-1977: research report for the National Population Inquiry, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1978, p. 128. 144 Mayne 1997, p. 147.


151

There was a huge thrust from the community for language maintenance for the kids… what we were faced with was lots of kids having home knowledge of a language that wasn’t taught in the school. And of the impossibility of any one school coping with this range of languages if they were going to try and provide mother tongue programs.145

Given the reality that the mainstream system could not deliver these programs, it was still the

alternative providers that played a key role in making up the shortfall: “The mixture of the

VSL and the ethnic schools seemed to provide at least a partial answer, given that large scale

answers were not even attempted.”146

In 1980, the Education Department’s statements about the school seemed to echo these

sentiments, again highlighting its importance to Victoria’s ethnic communities:

The Saturday School of Modern Languages, which has been in operation since the mid-thirties, continues to enjoy the support of ethnic communities in Victoria, many of whom consider the School to be an invaluable means of maintaining and preserving in their children the linguistic and cultural heritage of their countries of origin.147

Considering the mainstream school system’s expansion into “community” languages, the

Education Department predicted that the school’s growth would slow: “Although the demand

for the services of the Saturday School of Modern Languages is still increasing, a gradual

levelling off, due to the introduction of Modern Greek into more high schools, is expected to

occur within the next few years.” Perhaps the school, in establishing and fostering the growth

of Modern Greek, had served its initial purpose and achieved the aims and objectives of the

Modern Greek Teachers’ Association.

In 1982, the Education Department explained the success of the school in the following way:

“The Saturday School of Modern Languages is a unique language institution, whose success

is due largely to its very flexible organisational structure, supported by supervisors, language

coordinators, and instructors who are deeply committed to the maintenance of ethnic

community languages and cultures.”148 At the end of the year, it again reported that it

expected the growth of the school to decline due to the expansion of languages offered in

mainstream schools: “While enrolment in most languages is still growing, the number of

145 Interview with Bill and Lorna Hannan, 2013. 146 Ibid. 147 Report of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Special Education for the Year 1979 – 1980, p. 49. 148 Report of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Special Education for the Year 1980 – 1981, p. 51.


152

students enrolling in Italian over the past few years has been on the decline. This is a

welcome sign because it is an indication that the language is now available more readily to

the students as part of their regular school curriculum.”149

5.1.19 Mr Joe Abiuso becomes Headmaster

In January 1982, Mr Joe Abiuso became the Headmaster of the SSML. Like his predecessors,

he took on the role at a time when the school was undergoing rapid growth. In 1982, student

enrolments at the SSML reached 6,030 and instructors numbered 296. 150 The list of

languages increased to twenty-six with the establishment of Albanian. Abiuso’s career in

education started in 1962 at Northcote High School and he had taught French, Italian,

German and history at several metropolitan high schools in Melbourne. Abiuso had also

written Italian textbooks for Australian schools and had established Italian language

programs in Victorian schools.151 He remembers his first visit to the head office of the SSML

at Princes Hill High School. “When I went to the office, it was just a little store room

(laughs). It was such a tiny room... there was a desk there.”152 In the room were the school’s

only possessions: one filing cabinet, a typewriter and a steel locker.153

At that time, he was the only permanent full-time staff member at the school. Ninety five per

cent of the language instructors did not possess teaching qualifications. While preference was

given to those with full teaching qualifications, the reality was that it was “practically

impossible to find fully trained and registered teachers for some ethnic languages”.154 The

school also suffered from a poor status. “The school in those days was widely perceived as

little more than an educational ‘service’ – low profile, little known in the school community,

the general public, and the ethnic communities.”155 There were many other shortcomings.

These included inadequate support staff, no provision for in-service activities, and no

governing philosophy or plans for the school’s direction. Furthermore, there were no official

lines of communication with either the Educational Department, with other high schools or

149 Ibid. 150 SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages, Gross Enrolments – Term 1, 1982’, VSL archives. 151 G Abiuso, ‘Application for the position of Principal at the Victorian School of Languages’, document donated by Mr. G.Abiuso. 152 Interview with Joe Abiuso, 2013. 153 Abiuso, ‘Application for the position of Principal at the Victorian School of Languages.’ 154 Saturday School of Modern Languages, Saturday School of Modern Languages Handbook ’84, 1984, p. 10. 155 Abiuso, ‘Application for the position of Principal at the Victorian School of Languages.’


153

with the community run “ethnic schools”.156 Abiuso was aware that the structure of the

SSML had other weaknesses:

A Saturday school has all the syndromes of an after school activity, which lends itself more to an elite, or to those who have more resources to take advantage of this system; such as large ethnic groups; well organised groups, middle class background pupils, [with availability] of a parent who is free to bring the pupil to the language centre.157

To solve these problems, Abiuso made bold suggestions for how the school should be

transformed. Reminiscent of Kesarik’s ambitious vision articulated several years earlier,

Abiuso believed it could change into a day language school, called a Modern Languages

Institute. It could “operate like a normal school, with permanent fully qualified staff.”158

5.1.20 A permanent staffing structure is established

Under Abiuso, the SSML moved to establish a permanent staffing structure, with the

appointment of senior teachers called Supervisors in each of the major centres.159 It was

thought that “permanent appointments of senior staff was made with the aim of giving more

stability to the School and enhancing its status within the community and the education

system.”160 The process of appointment of those staff, however, was not without controversy.

“All the nine Senior Teacher positions had been filled by new “career” teachers. The “old”

supervisors, who had, for the greater part distinguished themselves by working well under

most daunting conditions, often as a genuine “labour of love”, had all lost their jobs!”161

Despite the disgruntlement that the new appointments caused, the creation of the Supervisor

position was one of the first times that the structure of the school was formalised. For some,

the creation of the Supervisor positions raised the profile of the SSML. “It was establishing in

the minds of the school and the community that the Saturday school, just like the day school,

was in fact a school, [and] was providing government education. It wasn't like we were being

given a favour.”162

156 Ibid. 157 G Abiuso, ‘The Saturday School of Modern Languages: Its role in the teaching of ethnic languages in Victoria’, paper presented at the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers’ Associations (AFMLTA) Fourth Biennial Conference, Perth, 3-6 September 1982. 158 Ibid. 159 Ibid. 160 SSML, Saturday School of Modern Languages Handbook ’84, p. 10. 161 Kleinhenz 1989, p. 10. 162 Interview with Jenny Wilkinson, 2013.


154

In a practical sense, having a Supervisor who was also on staff at the day school was

beneficial because it made liaison with the SSML staff run much more smoothly.163 The

Supervisors introduced protocols into the SSML that were already taken for granted in the

mainstream schools, such as fire drills, and policies to ensure accountability among

instructors. They also had to provide a high level of leadership to many competing groups

and at times this could be demanding. “It was a challenging environment and as a leader, it

was like working in the United Nations! You had to be sensitive to people from so many

different cultures and help them to work in an Australian context.”164 Another supervisor

explained that the pay was “not the best”, but that most staff members gave up their

Saturday mornings to work at the school because they believed in what it did.165

Around this period, there was a lot of confusion among staff at the SSML. Nobody knew

whether the school was covered by the “agreement” or what its financial entitlements were. It

was also unclear whether the new Supervisors had been appointed to the day schools that

were “hosting” the SSML centres, or to the SSML itself. This question had important

implications where transfer rights and other staffing matters where concerned. “The truth was

that in these matters and many others, nobody really seemed to know or to care very much.

Those with the loudest voices tended to win the day. The voices were getting louder and the

danger of pandemonium breaking out often seemed imminent.”166

5.1.21 A boost in mainstream support for language education

By 1983, it was widely accepted that Victoria’s multicultural and multilingual population

was something to be valued. The language programs in Victorian government schools were

given a boost when the government announced that it would provide funding for an

additional 50 teachers in community languages in Victorian primary schools. The Education

Minister stated: “It is important that the Government recognizes the desire of groups within

the community for community language teaching to be undertaken in schools. It is a

recognition of the multicultural nature of our society.”167

163 Ibid. 164 Personal communication with Mrs Fran Reddan, 28 October 2013. 165 P Smithers, ‘Tolerance through languages’, The Journal, 7 May 1984, p. 2. 166 Kleinhenz 1989, p. 11. 167 R Fordham, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 21 April 1983, vol. 369, p. 4023.


155

While a larger number of mainstream schools were making it possible for students to study

their ethnic language at school, in reality there was “still a long way to go to ensure that all

Australian children have the freedom to study the language of their choice.”168 While Italian

and Greek speaking students were now being catered for by the mainstream system, “the

Yugoslav group of languages (Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Slovenian) [were] barely

catered for”.169

The MLTAV continued to review its policy objectives for the teaching of languages other

than English in Victoria’s schools. In 1983, it reiterated its support for all languages,

including “community” languages: “Students whose first language is not English should be

given the opportunity to improve their competence in their native language.” The MLTAV

also weighed in on the question of which schools should be teaching what languages to

whom. It added: “Where ethnic language schools and other educational institutions offer

languages, this should not preclude the teaching of languages in the mainstream curriculum

of nearby post-primary schools.”170 It was articulating a case for a balance between

educational providers, and warning against complementary providers taking up the slack of

the work expected to be undertaken in mainstream school settings.

Victoria’s secondary education system underwent another period of broad reform around

this time. Victorian Institute of Secondary Education (VISE) was overhauled and in 1986,

the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board (VCAB) was set up. It included nine fields

of studies committees (FOSC). For the next five years, the FOSC for LOTE, which was

comprised of 24 professionals in the languages field, worked on development of a new

teaching and assessment system for senior secondary languages study, which would

eventually become the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE).171

Support for multicultural education continued to grow, and by 1987, the Victorian Education

Department had renewed its commitment to multicultural education, in the form of an official

policy. The Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education

prepared a single consolidated statement: 168 SSML, Saturday School of Modern Languages Handbook ’84, p. 11. 169 Ibid. 170 MLTAV, ‘M.L.T.A.V. policy on the teaching of languages other than English, 1983’, VSL archives. 171 Ceferin 2003, p. 57.


156

A multicultural perspective to schooling should equip all students to participate effectively in a multicultural society by describing a number of educational outcomes. In particular, all students should gain proficiency in English, and be able to communicate competently in a language or languages other than English, including those used in the Australian community.172

During the 1980s, the growing support for ethnic language education and the diversification

of the languages curriculum had a profound effect on the level of uptake of language study.

Enrolments in language study increased and retention rates began to improve.173 Children of

immigrant communities, who were strongly motivated to achieve high academic results,

encouraged many to undertake study in their own languages at senior secondary level. This

fostered a growth in enrolments in languages at the upper secondary level. “With a great

many European and Asian languages available, the possibility existed of making academic

progress through formal study of a mother tongue, and this was taken up by many young

people.” 174

5.1.22 The dominant languages open up opportunities for others

Despite Departmental predictions that they would decline, the overall student enrolment

numbers at the SSML continued to grow. In 1984, enrolments reached 7,365. The level of

growth in some languages was greater than 20 per cent compared to the previous year.

These were Arabic, Croatian, Dutch, Japanese Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Spanish, and

Vietnamese. At the same time, enrolment numbers in other languages such as Chinese,

Italian, Modern Greek and Slovenian decreased. That year, it was stated that 95 per cent of

the student population were from migrant families.175 The SSML’s handbook declared: “The

Saturday School of Modern Languages’ place in the Victorian system needs no justification.

It fulfils a very important role, satisfying the needs of thousands of families not catered for

by any other educational institution.”176 In 1984, the head office of the SSML moved to

Cheltenham North Primary School.177

172 Ministry of Education Victoria, Annual Report 1986 – 87, p. 28. 173 Teese and Polesol 2003, p. 88. 174 Ibid, p. 91. 175 Smithers 1984, p. 2. 176 SSML, Saturday School of Modern Languages Handbook ’84, p. 11. 177 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 9 February 1984, p. 41.


157

The decline in enrolments in some languages allowed the school to establish new language

programs without impacting on its operating costs. In 1986, the school established new

programs in Khmer and Pushto.178 Frank Merlino, who was Acting Principal of the SSML at

the time, argued that the new Pushto classes could be accommodated without involving any

new expenditure, due to the recent drop in Modern Greek enrolments. There were other

important considerations: “the request is from a small, isolated group of new arrivals who

need all the help they can get, and granting the request will generate a lot of good will.”179

The local press reported on the establishment of Pushto at the Chadstone High School centre,

where an Afghan breakfast was held to celebrate the event.180

5.1.23 Moves to formalise the SSML gather momentum

In 1983 the SSML had established an advisory school council, which consisted of an

interested group of parents and teachers.181 In its first meeting, it was moved that the

advisory council should be formed to “co-ordinate policy of the SSML”.182 The longer-term

goal, however, was ambitious. Its mission was to move the SSML towards eventually being

recognised as “a full and recognized secondary school with its own school council”.183

In 1985, the SSML school advisory council initiated a number of delegations, with the aim

of bringing the school to the attention of senior power brokers. They visited several senior

members of the Education Department. Key politicians such as Mr Peter Spyker, Minister

for Ethnic Affairs and Mr Ian Cathie, Education Minister, were also approached. In addition,

senior teachers formed their own branch of the Victorian Secondary Teachers’ Association

(VSTA). The VSTA joined in the campaign to upgrade the status of the school and to

improve the conditions for its staff. These actions all resulted in the decision to establish a

ministerial working party with broad representation from interested stakeholders. The brief

of the working party was to “thoroughly investigate all aspects of the school’s operations

and report back, with recommendations, no later than October 1986.”184

178 Education Department of Victoria Annual Report 1985 – 86, p. 103. 179 F Merlino, 23 July 1985, VSL archives. 180 ‘Course in Pushto’, Regional Progress, 25 September 1985, p. 17. 181 Abiuso, ‘Application for the position of Principal at the Victorian School of Languages’. 182 SSML, ‘Minute Book – SSML Advisory Council’, minutes of Advisory School Council Meeting 13 August 1983, document donated by Mr. G. Abiuso. 183 Kleinhenz 1989, p. 10. 184 Ibid, p. 11.


158

News about the working party was included in the official Education Department report that

year. It confirmed that the school was ambitiously seeking to achieve a much higher status:

The major initiative for the past year has been a proposal to upgrade the school to an Institute of Community Languages. This Institute would provide services not only on Saturday but also during the week in co-operation with day schools. It would extend into the primary area, would remove the difficulties of attendance for many students and would offer all children the opportunity to learn a community language.185

Although the final date for the working party’s report was initially set down as October

1986, the school was kept waiting for much longer. It became clear that the SSML advisory

school council was not going to be given the recognition it was seeking without a fight. This

resulted in a protracted campaign for the recognition of the school that lasted until late 1987.

While the working party on the SSML was in progress, any changes to the school were on

hold. In the meantime, Abiuso’s applications for more staffing allocations were not

approved.186

5.1.24 The long running dispute about pay arrangements

During the campaign for the school’s status to be upgraded, a group of teachers were also

engaging in their own campaign. Instructors at the school had always been paid at the end of

each school term. Their complaint was that they were taxed on their wages at the highest

taxable rate and they had to wait until the end of the financial year for any excess tax to be

refunded by the tax department. This was different from those who taught in “regular” state

schools. In March 1978, a group of instructors at the SSML had taken their case to their

federal member, but to no avail.187 The system of payment remained in place. In 1986, this

long running issue of pay arrangements once again raised its head. A group of staff claimed

that they had not been paid, prompting them to write to Abiuso about the problem. They sent

copies to several politicians and to Ian Cathie, the Minister for Education: “This is

absolutely scandalous and we as a staff want the situation corrected now and in the future.

185 Education Department of Victoria Annual Report 1985 – 86, p. 103. 186 J Dunstan, 5 December 1986, VSL archives. 187 Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, ‘House of Representatives: Petitions: Saturday School of Modern Languages’, 7 March 1978. Retrieved 25 June 2014, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/hansard80/hansardr80/1978-03-07/0005/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf


159

SSML teachers must be one of the few groups in our community that are not paid weekly,

fortnightly or monthly, instead we are paid at the end of term. This situation results in more

tax being paid so teachers are certainly being disadvantaged.”188 The group asked for a

review of pay arrangements, and for the “S.S.M.L. teachers [to] stop being treated like

second class citizens.”189

5.1.25 The breakthrough of 1987: the SSML is upgraded

By 1987, the school’s operations were too large and too extensive to be ignored. Student

enrolments had reached 8,318 students. That year, the school extended its provision of

language education to students in country areas with the establishment of centres in Echuca

and Horsham. That year, Hindi classes began, bringing the number of languages taught to

31.190

The SSML’s continued efforts to be “upgraded” were finally realised in October 1987 when

the Education Minister made his decision and the working party tabled its report. It made a

total of thirty recommendations. These covered a range of issues, the first of which

recommended declaring the SSML a school and that it be renamed the Victorian School of

Languages. It also recommended that the position of Principal (A class) be established. This

meant that the school would now have the same rights and privileges as any other Victorian

government school. It also covered issues such as the school’s budget, and channels of

communication, among others.191 Importantly, it was decided that the school would have its

own elected school council, and that it would acquire new powers, the same as any other

school council. These included financial responsibility, the determination of curriculum

policy and the provision of advice to the Ministry of Education.192

These decisions were announced On December 5th 1987, at the school’s annual staff meeting.

The Minister of Education, Mr Ian Cathie attended the meeting and addressed more than 400

teachers present. In his address, Cathie stated: “The Saturday School of Modern Languages

188 Staff at the SSML at Maribyrnong, 14 June 1986, VSL archives. 189 Ibid. 190 SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages, Gross Enrolments – March - 1987’, VSL archives. 191 ‘Review of the Saturday School of Modern Languages’, October 1987, report donated by Mrs Fran Reddan. 192 I Cathie, ‘A new era for the Saturday School’, Ailanto, Journal of the Victorian School of Languages, no. 1, 1988, pp. 21-23, p. 21.


160

has done a tremendous job since its establishment over fifty years ago in 1935. Its

contribution to the teaching of Languages Other Than English in Victoria has been

immensely valuable over that fifty years and more.”193 The Minister also paid tribute to the

work of the school for being the only school in Victoria to deliver courses in nearly half of

the languages taught in Victoria. He also acknowledged the work of teachers who had

worked hard to gain HSC accreditation for so many languages. He recognised that were it not

for the work of the school, many of those languages would not be available at senior

secondary level.194

Section 2: Discussion and analysis of the SSML and its journey towards recognition

This section of the chapter now turns to a number of theories to help interpret and explain the

major theme of legitimacy throughout this period in the school’s development.

5.2.1 The Organizational Saga of the SSML

The first theory that will be used as a lens to illuminate the school’s journey towards

legitimacy, as described in the narrative above is Clark’s theory of the Organizational Saga. It

refers to “a narrative of heroic exploits, of a unique development that has deeply stirred the

emotions of participants and descendants.”195 It describes “a collective understanding of

unique accomplishment in a formally established group” and “refers to a unified set of

publicly expressed beliefs about the formal group that (a) is rooted in history, (b) claims

unique accomplishment, and (c) is held with sentiment by the group”.196 The sagas that

circulate among employees strengthen the feeling of collegiality within the institution and are

used as a means of self-management.197 This theory is relevant to the history of this school in

many ways because it illuminates the emotional aspects of institutions, not simply the formal

structures.198

193 Ibid. 194 Merlino 1988, p. 23. 195 Clark 1972. 196 Ibid, p. 178-179. 197 Czarniawska 2007, p. 384. 198 Clark 1972, p. 180.


161

Clark explains that Organizational Sagas can vary greatly in their strength and their

longevity.199 It is clear that in this section of the history of the VSL, it has an Organizational

Saga that is strong. In such situations, individuals who work at those organisations share a

special bond and form a community. “In an organization defined by a strong saga, there is a

feeling that there is the small world of the lucky few and the large routine one of the rest of

the world.”200 This is certainly true of the VSL staff, many of whom expressed their feelings

of pride and passion for their school in their oral testimonies.

Clark explains that the initiation of the Saga involves the inception of a strong purpose,

“conceived and enunciated by a single man or small cadre”.201 In the case of the VSL, there

have been many leaders and senior staff who worked tirelessly to further the school. Yet the

individual who fits this description most closely is Joe Abiuso, who campaigned to have

school upgraded and raised to an official status. He did not work alone but worked together

with a group of senior staff and members of the advisory school council to have the school

recognised. While Kesarik advocated for the expansion of the school as early as 1977,

Abiuso started articulating a case for the upgrading of the school soon after his appointment

as Headmaster in 1982. In his address to the AFMLTA conference in 1982, he suggested that

the school could transform itself into a day language school, called a Modern Languages

Institute. It could “operate like a normal school, with permanent fully qualified staff”.202

Abiuso’s push for the school to be legitimised resulted in a long and protracted campaign,

which was not fulfilled until late 1987.

Clark also explains that there are some particular situations or contexts that lend themselves

to the initiation of such a strong purpose. One of these is “the established organization that is

not in crisis, not collapsing from long decline, yet ready for evolutionary change.”203 This is

indeed true in the case of the SSML. The period when Abiuso initiated his campaign to

upgrade the school occurred at a point of dramatic transformation for the school. In a period

of fifteen years, student numbers at the SSML jumped from just over 1,500 in 1972 to more

than 8,000 by 1987. The number of languages also exploded, as did the number of teaching

199 Ibid, p. 179. 200 Ibid, p. 183. 201 Ibid, p. 180. 202 Abiuso 1982. 203 Clark 1972, p. 180.


162

staff and centres. This internal transformation also reflected a fundamental shift that took

place externally, in Australian society generally. It was this era that saw a shift in Australia’s

official language policies. It was in 1987 that the National Policy on Languages (NPL)

advocated for “a language other than English for all”.204

Clark explains that after the initiation of a saga, there are several key ways for it to be

fulfilled. One of these is that there should be something unique about the program offered by

the institution.

For a college to transform purpose into a credible story of unique accomplishment, there must be visible practices with which claims of distinctiveness can be supported; that is, unusual courses, note-worthy requirements, or special methods of teaching. On the basis of seemingly unique practices, the program becomes a set of communal symbols and rituals, invested with meaning.205

This is undoubtedly the case of the SSML. It was precisely because it specialised in special

programs that were often not offered by mainstream state schools that it had managed to

carve out a niche for itself. It was recognised for its highly distinctive role and was known to

be unlike any other institution in Victoria or indeed, Australia. In 1982 it was publicly

acknowledged by the Education Department: “The Saturday School of Modern Languages is

a unique language institution, whose success is due largely to its very flexible organisational

structure, supported by supervisors, language coordinators, and instructors who are deeply

committed to the maintenance of ethnic community languages and cultures.”206

Clark asserts that this uniqueness is a defining element for organisations. “Such practices

become central to a belief that things had been done so differently, and so much against the

mainstream, and often against imposing odds, that the group had generated a saga.”207 This

idea of working “against the odds” and working against the mainstream is a particularly

strong narrative in this period of the SSML’s history. Right throughout the period of Abiuso’s

campaign to have the school upgraded, there is a pervading sense that the school was

confronted by formidable odds. Underpinning the narrative is a recurrent message that the

school was an underdog and it was engaged in a fierce battle for recognition. This is clear in

204 Lo Bianco 1987. 205 Clark 1972, p. 181. 206 Report of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Special Education for the Year 1980 – 1981, p. 51. 207 Clark 1972, p. 182.


163

the way it represented itself in the campaign. In late 1986, when the push to have the school

upgraded, the narrative reached a fever pitch. This is illustrated in a letter from the President

of the School Advisory Council to Ian Cathie, the Education Minister, claiming that the

school was the subject of departmental neglect:

We do suspect that a branch of the Ministry is causing the Saturday School of Modern Languages to be kept in a very disadvantageous situation… The Council would like to have an assurance from you that this long delay is not the result of a deliberate action in order to keep our school… in a state of inferiority and disadvantage in relation to other schools.208

In Clark’s theory, Organizational Sagas are often expressed in powerful ways. It explains that

it is not uncommon for organisations to uphold, express and cultivate their sagas in a diverse

and creative range of traditions. “[T]he saga is… expressed as a generalized tradition in

statues and ceremonies, written histories and current catalogues… The more unique the

history and the more forceful the claim to a place in history, the more intensely cultivated the

ways of sharing memory and symbolizing the institution.”209 This is very true in the case of

the SSML. It was in Abiuso’s era that the first account of the school’s history was written and

several others would soon follow, as a means to memorialise the school’s struggles to be

recognised and legitimised. 210

Examining the history of the school through the lens of Clark’s theory highlights the way that

the SSML community formed a close bond throughout a tumultuous period of transformation

at the school. It was through this period that the school managed to realise Abiuso’s goal; to

have the school legitimised. This theory illuminates why the school community worked

together throughout the period of the SSML; they banded together as a group to collectively

fight for the school that they so passionately believed in. With such a strong Organizational

Saga, the school was able to benefit from the loyalty of its devoted personnel and the pride

that they took in their school.

Yet the realisation of the dream to have the SSML upgraded and legitimised was not solely

the result of actions on the part of Abiuso and his group of advocates. The decision to

upgrade the school can also be attributed to several broader changes in society that assisted

208 Kleinhenz 1989, p. 11-12. 209 Clark 1972, p. 182. 210 Abiuso and Kleinhenz 1989, Merlino 1988, Kleinhenz 1989.


164

Abiuso’s campaign and helped to facilitate this event. For this reason, it is useful to now turn

to a second theoretical concept to explore the ways that organisations gain legitimacy.

5.2.2 The SSML benefits from a shift in institutional contexts

Meyer and Rowan’s approach emphasises the importance of external factors in an

organisation’s claim for legitimacy. This idea asserts that institutional rules, or “widespread

understandings of social reality” such as “public opinion, by the views of important

constituents, by knowledge legitimated through the educational system, [or] by social

prestige” have an enormous impact on organisations, and that organisations are compelled to

incorporate these elements into their operations in order to gain legitimacy and to increase

their prospects for survival.211 Organisations are heavily influenced by their respective

institutionalised contexts and inevitably, they must reflect and parallel them.212 Organisations

that fail to incorporate these “building blocks” risk illegitimacy, because it is these

institutional rules that are “are considered proper, adequate, rational and necessary”.213

When Burnie Rymer was appointed teacher in charge of the Saturday classes in 1965, the key

institutional contexts with which the language classes conformed had not changed from their

origins in 1935. Throughout the period of the SSML, the school still accurately adhered to the

key formal structure of the state education system. It still reflected the institutional myths of a

school. Throughout this period, however, when opportunities arose, the school’s leaders

made adjustments to ensure that the SSML’s operations adhered even more closely to these

key external institutional rules. Under Rymer, the school was given a name. Under Kesarik,

the school expanded to open many new centres. Under Abiuso, the school formed its first

school council and in 1988 it was granted a formal status as an official state school.

Throughout this period, the school managed to carve out for itself a role and an identity as a

key provider of important programs that could not be delivered elsewhere, and it was

acknowledged for this. Other events that took place along the way, such as pay disputes, saw

staff wishing to be remunerated and treated on equal footing as all other state school

employees. These can also be understood as struggles for legitimacy.

211 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 343. 212 Ibid, p. 346. 213 Ibid, p. 345.


165

There had not been widespread demand for programs in Japanese, Italian, Dutch or Russian

in Australia in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. In terms of Meyer’s theory, there had been very

limited external constituencies for whom these kinds of languages were important. Yet these

external institutional contexts began to undergo a dramatic shift around the mid-1960s, and

this change had a profound effect on the school. Around the mid-1960s, the level of external

institutional support for a more diversified and innovative language curriculum began to

grow. In 1966, there were five languages taught at two centres and student enrolments

numbered around one thousand. Italian in particular started to dominate and enrolments

included a growing number of students of Italian background. The external constituencies for

whom Italian language learning was important were growing in size and gaining power. In an

increasingly multilingual Australian society, the broader level of interest in programs for

language maintenance was gathering support, enough to maintain the school’s innovative

curriculum.

From 1971, when the school became known as the Saturday School of Modern Languages, it

began to undergo its most dramatic change. The number of languages offered exploded from

nine in 1971 to thirty in 1987. By 1987, there were more than 8,000 students enrolled. This

transformation came as a result of mounting widespread external institutional support in

Australian society for education programs for community language maintenance. The level of

interest in programs delivering migrant languages had evolved into a powerful force. The

community languages movement was an expression of second-generation claims for

legitimisation, status and inclusion in the education system. Clyne calls this increase in

opportunities to use community languages in both public and private domains the

“mainstreaming” of community languages.214

This dramatic increase in the level of external institutional support for education in

community languages was closely intermeshed with changes in Australia’s official language

policies. The period from 1970 onwards has been labelled the “accepting” phase of

multilingualism in Australia.215 In the 1970s, the English-only language policy of the past

was replaced with a multicultural language ideology, which made Australia a world leader.

By the mid-1970s, all Australian political parties had developed policies on the maintenance

214 Clyne 1991 p. 154. 215 Ibid, p. 24.


166

of community languages and the provision of services in languages other than English.216 By

1987, Australia had introduced a National Policy on Languages (NPL) that advocated for “a

language other than English for all.”217

The fact that the SSML had already proven itself to be a credible operation was a crucial

foundation upon which the school was able to capitalise, in order to further advance its claim

for legitimacy. The large number of students, centres, and languages offered had already

documented the SSML’s efficiency as a viable school. Enrolments were so high that it had

become accepted as an essential provider of language programs for Victorian children.

Through this process, it was also able to gain access to crucial funding and other resources in

order to survive. Yet it was the dramatic and fundamental shift that took place in Australia’s

external institutional ideologies about language learning that enabled the SSML to cement its

status even further as a successful and sustainable institution. It was only after this

overwhelming groundswell of acceptance among external institutions for language

maintenance that the SSML was able to capitalise on this new level of legitimacy and

undertake its next transformation. This enabled it to undergo its most important stage on its

road to legitimacy, the 1988 recognition of the VSL as an official state school.

5.2.3 Heritage language groups and their quest for legitimacy

Not all, but many of the languages taught at the SSML were heritage languages that were

rarely taught at any other state schools. These languages represented a significant proportion

of the SSML curriculum. In order to be included among the languages taught at the SSML,

and to benefit from the legitimacy associated with an affiliation with the state school system,

heritage languages went through an important process of grafting themselves on to the SSML

structure.

Mercurio and Scarino explain that one important dimension of the grafting process involves

the forming of “subject communities” that are advocates of heritage languages.218 In the

history of the SSML, this process was played out time and time again. There were many

216 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009 p. 19. 217 Lo Bianco 1987. 218 F Musgrove, ‘The contribution of sociology to the study of the curriculum’, in JF Kerr (ed.) Changing the Curriculum, University of London Press, London, 1968, pp. 96-109.


167

subject communities that consisted of effective and active members. They included teachers,

parents, students, academics, community leaders, and others. These groups lobbied the school

and the Education Department and they worked hard to graft their heritage language subjects

on to existing SSML structures as a means to gain legitimacy.

In the case of the SSML, representatives of many of the subject communities gained even

higher status and legitimacy by working within the set criteria for HSC accreditation.219 It is

clear that this took place in Victoria, and that the teachers at the SSML played a key role in

assisting many heritage languages to make applications for accreditation for the HSC. In the

case of languages such as Slovenian, its subject community sought to have the language

established at the SSML as a means to gain access to the support and structures that would

facilitate the HSC accreditation process.

In addition, these languages benefitted from an affiliation with scholars at the university level.

In the case of the SSML, senior teachers and headmasters understood the importance of this

link. Beginning with Inagaki’s support for Japanese in 1935, Lodewycx for Dutch in 1941

and right throughout the SSML era, the school often worked closely with university

academics in order to establish language programs or make applications for accreditation at

HSC level.

5.2.4 Macro and micro language policy considerations

This chapter’s exploration of the rapid growth of the school from 1965-1987 also provides an

opportunity to consider the second research question of this thesis, which was stated in

Chapter 1 Introduction, “How was the VSL shaped by “macro” and “micro” language policy

and planning?”220 The linguist Leitner described the VSL as a “grass-roots initiative that was

absorbed by a top-down policy”.221

It is clear that from 1965-1987, there was a lot of activity going on at the “micro” level.

Community interests played a large part in the growth and the development of the school.

Many requests for the establishment of new language programs came directly from

219 Mercurio and Scarino 2005, p. 148. 220 Leitner 2004, p. 263. 221 Ibid.


168

concerned community members who were active agents and advocates at the “grassroots”

level. In this respect, it is clear that there was some degree of micro level, grassroots

involvement.

Yet the situation was complex and there was more than simply micro level language planning

in play. The school’s growth and development was the result of both micro level language

policy and planning, together with macro level language policy and planning. It was a

combined effort. The school operated with the full knowledge, support and approval of the

Education Department. The Victorian government provided the framework for these

languages to be taught, by offering state school buildings and paying the instructors to deliver

the programs. So while it undoubtedly shows some elements of micro level language policy

and planning, it must be acknowledged that this took place within the construct and under the

auspices of a state government department.

Through its support of the SSML, the Education Department provided the framework for

community languages to be included. It was because of the support and the approval of the

Education Department that the community advocates could have their requests

accommodated. In this respect, the school was indeed the product of top down, government

driven macro level language policies, but those policies were influenced by the political

action of communities on the grassroots level.

Lorna Hannan, who worked on policy statements with the Victorian Advisory Committee for

Migrant and Multicultural Education in the 1980s, believes that it was government policy that

played a large part in the development of the school:

I think it was much more to do with government policy than it was to do with particular language groups. Because government policy represents the aggregation of the wishes of different community groups. And no one was strong enough to do anything much by itself. So I think political action and government policy was what pushed it. But it had to be pushed.222

Scholars have noted that the 1980s was also a period which saw an emergence of the migrant

vote and an increasing power among Greek and Italian workers in Victorian trade unions.223

222 Interview with Bill and Lorna Hannan, 2013. 223 Collins 1988, p. 147-148.


169

At the same time, the country’s top-down, “macro” language policies were shifting

dramatically. By the 1970s, assimilationist attitudes had started to be replaced by support for

multilingualism. By 1974, it was widely stated that language maintenance programs for

migrant children were important and this issue was addressed in many policy areas of

Grassby’s Task Forces. 224 By the time Abiuso was appointed in 1983, Victoria had

introduced “macro” policies to support the rights and needs of its many migrant communities.

This acknowledgement of the importance of language education for all children was reflected

in the level of support and the funding that the Education Department gave to the school for

its ever-expanding operations.

By May 1987, government support for a broad range of language learning was cemented with

Australia’s new and inclusive “macro” language policy, The National Policy on Languages

(NPL). This policy had four major goals: 1. English for all; 2. Support for Aboriginal

languages; 3. A language other than English for all; and 4. The widespread provision of

language services in appropriate languages. 225 The NPL was considered a watershed

report.226 It promoted a balanced approach that allowed traditionally taught classical and

geopolitical languages to co-exist with community languages.227 But as demonstrated in this

chapter, in the context of the SSML, the Victorian government had already been providing

this “top down” support for a highly diverse group of language programs and language

learners for some twenty years. As Rymer explained, as early as 1965, the Victorian

Education Department readily approved reasonable requests for expansion and there were no

budget limitations placed on the school’s growth. In this sense, the Victorian Education

Department’s support of languages was ahead of its time.

5.3 Conclusion

Using a combined approach of historical analysis together with theory has shown that the

school’s claims for recognition as a legitimate operation rested heavily on Australian

society’s increasing support for multilingualism in the 1980s. It was not until the external

social opinion about language maintenance became positive and favourable that Abiuso’s

224 Ozolins 1993, p. 115. 225 Lo Bianco, 1987. 226 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 22. 227 Smolicz and Secombe 2003, p. 11.


170

passionate and long campaign was able to achieve success. Yet as Hannan suggests,

government support for the school’s official recognition did not occur in a vacuum. The

government’s endorsement came as a result of the pressure of community action.228 What the

official recognition of the school would actually mean for the classes and its language

communities was not yet clear. After achieving this newfound legitimacy, the school

embarked on a new era from 1988 onwards, and the realities of this increased status will be

explored in Chapter 6.

228 Interview with Bill and Lorna Hannan, 2013.

Chapter 6. The Victorian School of Languages 1988-1994

171


6.1 Introduction

This is the final chapter to present a narrative of the history and the development of the

school. Once again, this chapter is divided into two sections. The first section is a historical

narrative of the school’s development, and it begins at the start of 1988, when the school was

renamed the Victorian School of Languages. This section ends in 1994. The reason for the

narrative finishing in 1994 is related to a number of practical considerations and these will be

explained towards the end of the chapter. The second section of this chapter is a theoretical

discussion that again focuses on the issues of legitimacy that were in play during this period

of time.

The period 1988-1994 was a new era in which the VSL was finally recognised as an official

state school. This official recognition involved a period of transition and adjustment that

presented new challenges for the school and its administrators. With its higher status and

profile, the VSL was put into the spotlight and subjected to a greater level of scrutiny. This

brought a need for a greater level of professionalism and accountability in many areas of the

school’s operations. The Education Department’s deliberate appointment of a Principal who

was considered unlikely to have allegiances to particular ethnic groups was an integral part of

this higher level of accountability. In some instances, conflict and tension emerged as the

school attempted to maintain power and resist the tight control imposed upon it by the

Ministry.

Several important changes took place in the broader context of education in Australia during

this period, and this presented challenges for the newly formalised VSL. In 1990 and 1991,

there was a recession in Victoria, and there was an increasing trend towards economic

rationalism in educational administration. Closely related to this was the way that micro-

economic reform influenced language policy.1 Australian language policy shifted its focus

towards vocational goals as reasons for language learning.2 Programs that were thought to

give a poor economic return on their funding investment came under scrutiny. Policy 1 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 17. 2 Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels 1995, p. 6.


172

increasingly stressed the need to limit federal funding of language programs to specific

languages considered important for trade purposes.3

Section 1: The Victorian School of Languages

6.1.1 1988: The optimism of a new era

When Abiuso’s dream of having the school upgraded and recognised was finally realised on

January 1, 1988, it was the end of a long and passionate fight. Ian Cathie, the Minister of

Education, had announced the decision to rename the school and to upgrade its status at a

meeting of the parents and staff on December 5th 1987. He stated: “I am pleased to announce

that the school will become a government school, it will be named The Victorian School of

Languages, and it will have an elected School Council. You have worked very hard to

achieve that.”4

In 1988, the atmosphere at the newly launched school was optimistic and the school year

began with a buzz. Abiuso’s first circular to supervisors for the year celebrated the school’s

new name and raised status: “It is with great pleasure that I write this circular on the official

Victorian School of Languages letterhead. You must agree with me, the establishment of the

VSL is a great achievement for all concerned and above all, for you, who have contributed so

much, beyond the call of duty, towards the realization of this goal.”5

Others recall the importance of the event: “It was the great achievement of the Principal Joe

Abiuso. With strong support by the school community, he managed to get support of various

educational bodies and finally the government. It opened the way for greater effectiveness

and professionalism of this special school.”6 A month into the 1988 school year, Abiuso

wrote to senior staff and reported that the phasing in of the changes was going very smoothly:

“I am receiving very positive Ministry support. I can confidently say the worst frustrations

are behind us.”7 Yet whether this was true would remain to be seen.

3 Willoughby 2006, p. 5. 4 Cathie 1988, p. 21. 5 G Abiuso, 1 February 23 1988, p. 2, VSL archives. 6 Personal communication with Aleksandra Ceferin, 3 December 2013. 7 G Abiuso, March 4 1988, VSL archives.


173

In 1988, when the school was renamed the Victorian School of Languages, its operations

were vast. There were a total of 32 languages taught across 16 centres around Victoria. These

were Albanian, Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Dutch, Estonian, French, German, Hindi,

Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Khmer, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Maltese,

Modern Greek, Polish, Portuguese, Pushto, Russian, Serbian, Slovac, Slovenian, Spanish,

Turkish, Ukrainian and Vietnamese. That year, students were now required to pay an annual

service charge of $10.8 The instructors’ rate of pay per session was $83.76 for Year 12

instructors, $71.79 for Year 11 instructors, and $59.83 for all other levels. Despite several

attempts by staff in previous years to have the pay arrangements changed, instructors were

still paid at the end of each school term.9

An advertisement was published at the start of the 1988 school year in The Age newspaper. It

read: “We speak and teach 30 community languages. You can learn one too. Students: Don’t

miss this opportunity to learn another language! Start now!”10 Just as it had in previous

decades, the school’s Student’s Information Circular still emphasised that language study was

something to be taken seriously: “For success in language work, regular and punctual

attendance at classes and conscientious study and homework followed by periodic testing are

indispensable. Only those willing to fulfil these requirements are advised to join a language

class.”11

In 1988, the VSL’s student population was continuing to grow and the school’s operations

had the flexibility to adapt to student demand relatively easily. “Elisaveta” was a recent

education graduate with a teaching “method” in Macedonian. The Supervisor of the

Thomastown Centre told her, “We don’t have a primary class. If you come to me with 20

kids, you’ve got a job,” and she did. “There was obviously a demand. I found a bunch of

primary kids and that was my first class.”12 Over the next few years, she taught VCE

Macedonian and the classes at that centre increased from 3 to 12, and the centre became a

hub for the teaching of Macedonian.

8 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 5 November 1987, p. 671. 9 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 10 September 1987, p. 543. 10 The Age, 5 February 1988, p. 2. 11 VSL, ‘Student’s Information Circular -1988’, VSL archives. 12 Interview with “Elisaveta”, 2013.


174

There were instances where the VSL’s provision of language classes overlapped with classes

being run by ethnic schools. In some cases, the VSL absorbed the ethnic school classes.

Elisaveta recalls that this was the case with Macedonian in Thomastown: “In the portables at

the back of the school, there was a church school operating, and I made the suggestion that it

would be really good for them if their class of kids came over to the VSL and they did.”13

Joining the VSL brought many benefits associated with being a part of the government

school system: “Once VSL Macedonian took off, it wasn’t difficult to get those teachers to

come over. We’d say, “Hey, why don’t you come over and join us?” because they were

supported, they were paid. They were part of a proper school. It’s really hard work trying to

run your own school. Really, really hard work, and so that happened pretty painlessly. It

wasn’t antagonistic or difficult, it just happened.” 14

6.1.2 Government support divides languages

By this time, one in four students in Victorian government schools had a non-English

speaking background. In its annual report, the Education Ministry emphasised its

commitment to supporting these students, through the implementation of programs in ESL,

LOTE, bilingual education and cultural education. “Multicultural perspectives across the

curriculum are important in helping all students to develop the knowledge and competences

which are necessary for effective participation in a culturally diverse society.”15

However around this time, Australia’s official language policies underwent a shift towards

vocational goals as reasons for language learning.16 Nineteen eighty eight saw a sizeable push

in mainstream education for the teaching of Asian languages in particular. The then Federal

Education Minister, John Dawkins said that he would like to see around 25 per cent of

Australian students studying an Asian language by the year 2000.17 Government policy

increasingly stressed the need to limit federal funding of language programs to those specific

languages considered important for trade purposes.18

13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Report of the Ministry of Education for the Year ended June 1988, p. 190. 16 Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels 1995, p. 6. 17 C Hogg, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 23 March 1988, vol. 390, Council, p. 294. 18 Willoughby 2006, p. 5.


175

To meet the growing need for Asian language education in Victoria, Caroline Hogg, the then

Minister for Education explained that the State would endeavour to increase the number of

qualified teachers of Asian languages, by assisting partially qualified teachers to gain the

necessary qualifications. There were also initiatives such as studentships and training

allowances. However Hogg was also keen to articulate her support for community languages

and stressed: “I do not believe that there is any necessary tension between the teaching and

expansion of community languages and the teaching and expansion of Asian languages.”19

With this statement, the VSL’s provision of programs in all categories of languages seemed

to be well supported.

6.1.3 A new industrial agreement boosts the positive outlook

The VSL gained an important boost in August 1989, in the form of a new Agreement for

conditions and staffing at the school.20 Ratified by the Ministry of Education and the

Teachers Federation of Victoria, it was to be implemented at the beginning of the 1990

school year. The Agreement outlined the structure of staffing, appointment procedures and

conditions of work for all staff within the VSL. This included the Principal Class positions as

well as Supervisors, Assistant Supervisors, Instructors, Support Staff such as typists,

audiovisual aides, librarians and course co-ordinators.21 In forwarding the Agreement to staff,

Abiuso emphasised the significance of this event:

You must agree with me in a period when many schools are being closed and there are economic restraints and dismembering of established schools, the establishment of the V.S.L. is a recognition of the hard work you have done over the years… In this sense in the Victorian Education System, it is a great historical moment. The Agreement, the Budget of $2,500,000.00 and the contribution provisions are great tangible facts for which the V.S.L., the Migrant Communities and the Victorian public will ultimately receive tremendous benefits.22

Shortly afterwards, the new position of Deputy Principal at the VSL was advertised in the

Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid.23

19 Hogg 1988. 20 Report of the Ministry of Education for the Year ended June 1989, p. 44. 21 J Dunstan, 7 September 1989, VSL archives. 22 G Abiuso, 22 September 1989, VSL archives. 23 Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, 14 November 1989, p. 486-487.


176

Internal documents suggest that the school identified several reasons for its success. There

was a tendency for only the most motivated of students to enrol. Other factors included the

support provided to students from their families. Students also benefitted from a sense of

belonging to their particular group: “The students learn in an atmosphere where they are not

teased for learning a funny language.”24 It also listed the dedication and the enthusiasm of the

staff. Another reason was the flexibility of the school structure, in its ability to provide new

classes where they were needed. The fact that the VSL was a government school was another

explanation: “As the School is a Ministry of Education School, and provides objective

education, it has gained the respect of the parents and the School community as a whole.”25

6.1.4 The remaining recommendations for reform

Even though Abiuso had suggested that the frustrations of the past were over, in 1989 it

started to become clear that this was not the case. As outlined at the end of the previous

chapter, in November 1987, Minister Ian Cathie had accepted many of the recommendations

of a Working Party that had been established to review the role of the SSML. While many of

the recommendations were implemented, several were yet to be taken up.

In 1988, another Working Party was set up with the aim of implementing the

recommendations that remained. It was intended to develop a budget framework and a policy

for the school, particularly in relation to the provision of LOTE. “This Working Party

addressed issues concerning the role and responsibilities of the VSL to ensure that the school

complemented overall LOTE provision.”26 In 1989, the Working Party developed a draft

framework and sent it to the VSL for consideration. Rather than responding to the draft

framework, a newly appointed VSL School Council approved its own School Policy that

articulated an updated rationale and renewed aims for the school.27 “[T]he VSL [had]

subsequently developed its own policy framework which did not take into account the role of

the school in the context of overall LOTE provision and did not establish clear priorities for

student enrolments.”28

24 VSL, ‘The Victorian School of Languages Briefing May 1991’, VSL archives. 25 Ibid. 26 Office of Schools Administration, Ministry of Education and Training, 19 June 1991, p. 23, VSL archives. 27 VSL, 16 August 1989, VSL archives. 28 Office of Schools Administration, 1991, p. 23.


177

In her 1989 essay about the school’s history, Kleinhenz labelled the period 1982 – 1989 a

“power period”. It was a period in which the school was rocked by struggles to maintain

power. “[T]he power struggles may escalate. The extent to which the V.S.L. will be able to

remain in control of its own destiny is problematical.”29 Kleinhenz’ assessment of this period

suggests that the school council’s decision to contest the Working Party’s draft framework

can be seen as an act of resistance to the Education Department’s control over the school. It

can be seen as a school council’s reluctance to let go of the relative autonomy that it had

enjoyed when the school was still the SSML. In being upgraded to the VSL, the school was

now under a greater level of control and scrutiny by the Department.

Another problem that the school faced was that its budget had been “frozen” for a number of

years and would continue to be for the 1990–91 year. These budget restrictions prevented

the school from being able to respond to new requests for classes from language groups. It is

unclear whether this was in response to the school’s refusal to accept advice from the

working party. The “main problem” faced by the school, however, was the lack of staff at

the VSL Head Office to take care of curriculum and human resources. Despite having made

requests for these positions, it was believed that these requests would not be approved. The

school’s senior administrators were bewildered by this apparent lack of support: “The lack of

visible support is difficult to understand given the School’s track record, its success as a

catalyst in the introduction of new languages, its service to the ethnic communities, its VCE

results, the goodwill it creates, and the savings it provides to the Ministry.”30

Anne Eckstein, who worked in the Languages Unit in the Ministry, recalls that several of the

school’s principals expressed their feelings of neglect: “They all sort of had a bit of a siege

mentality that everyone hated them... [They said] ‘We want to do this but no-one will listen

to us. We haven’t got enough money, we need a new centre and they won’t let us start a new

centre.’”31 Eckstein attributes this mentality to the fact that there was rapid change in the late

1980s and early 1990s. There were many restructures in the Ministry and the responsibility

for the school’s administration shifted many times: “For some of that period they [the VSL]

were stuck under a region, at one stage they were under northern and at one stage they were

29 Kleinhenz 1989, p. 12. 30 VSL, ‘The Victorian School of Languages Briefing May 1991’, VSL archives. 31 Interview with Anne Eckstein, 2013.


178

under south-central. So they got pushed from pillar to post… and nobody really wanted to

know them.”32

6.1.5 Enrolment trends continue to shift

As shown below, enrolment trends continued to fluctuate throughout this period. In 1990,

Asian languages were growing, as a result of government policy that was pushing the

advancement of those languages. But VSL programs in all types of languages continued to be

well supported. That year, the 7 languages with the highest enrolments were Chinese,

Vietnamese, Turkish, Modern Greek, Croatian, Spanish and Japanese. Modern Greek had

been the most heavily populated language in 1989 but it experienced the most significant

drop in enrolments in 1990. This was due to the fact that more schools were offering Greek

as part of their day curriculum, especially private Greek schools. There were several other

European languages that were facing a continual decline in student enrolment numbers, such

as Czech, Estonian, Latvian and Hungarian.33

Fig. 6.1 Enrolments in select languages at VSL, 1983-1993 34

32 Interview with Anne Eckstein, 2013. 33 VSL, ‘The Victorian School of Languages Briefing May 1991’, VSL archives. 34 Source: The author compiled this Figure based on raw enrolment data in archival documents found in the Victorian School of Languages archives, PROV VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949-1971, PROV VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973, Parliamentary Debates and Ministry of Education annual reports.


179

The students that took up language study at the VSL continued to come from a wide range of

backgrounds. Student cohorts tended to vary widely among the languages. Some languages

were dominated by background speakers whereas others were not. In one class of Dutch,

there were as many students with Anglo sounding surnames (such as Parker, Reid,

Strickland) as there were Dutch sounding names. The same was true for Italian, which was

largely dominated by Anglo sounding names such as Blake, West, and Andrews. Furthermore,

the enrolments in Japanese were entirely Anglo sounding, with no students with an obvious

Japanese background enrolled at all. Classes in Modern Greek, on the other hand, were

entirely populated by students with an obvious Greek background. 35 It should be noted that

student surnames are not a definitive measure of the changes among the student population.

Due to the complex nature of societal relations there were perhaps many more students with

some background knowledge of a language, but who could not be identified by their

surnames.

6.1.6 An unorthodox appointment of a new Principal sparks controversy

In the first week of January 1991, Abiuso retired from his role as Principal of the VSL. The

outgoing President of the VSL School Council acknowledged his legacy: “When he started

the school had fewer than 5,000 students and he had only the assistance of a typist to run the

Head Office… It was his vision to raise the service to the full status of a mainstream school

and make its service available to all schools in Victoria.”36 Others acknowledged Abiuso’s

ambitious vision for the school and the enormous energy that he put into it: “I think he was a

visionary, and he was very passionate about the school and very passionate about improving

its delivery and the quality of its service. He lobbied and pushed the boundaries, and he took

action. And if he saw there was a weakness, he’d just make the changes.”37

In 1991 Gil Freeman was appointed to replace Abiuso. Bill Hannan, who was the Director of

Curriculum in the Education Department at the time, was integral to Freeman’s appointment.

He recalls that there had been a degree of disgruntlement about the running of the VSL, due

to potential conflicts of interest between the VSL and the ethnic schools. “My people in the

35 VSL, ‘Student enrolment forms – 1991’, VSL archives. 36 VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages President’s Annual Report 1990-1991’, 18 March 1991, VSL archives. 37 Interview with “Edward”, 2013.


180

Department were telling me that there could be clashes going on, territorial war over whose

students was whose.”38 He remembers discussing the question of who should be appointed to

run the school with Jim Betson, who was in charge of staffing:

I told him it needs to get a lift up, it needs to be better organised and it needs to be seen to be clear of any conflicts that might or might not be operating. And, so I went for appointing someone from outside the field… definitely not someone who might be seen as compromised by some other connections... So that the VSL could stand on its own as solid, independent school.39

When appointed at the beginning of 1991, Gil Freeman was in an acting capacity as relieving

Principal of the school. This decision marked a key shift in the school’s direction. Anne

Eckstein, who worked in the Languages Unit in the Ministry at the time, believed that

Freeman was well suited for the job: “He had been a Principal of a pretty major secondary

school and he had been on some ministerial committees and he knew his way around some of

the key players in the Department. And Gil was a player, he knew how to position the school

and to work with key people in the Department who could advance the school.”40 Yet not

everybody was pleased about the choice: “Gil was basically a government Labor Party

appointee. His credentials for being a school leader in the area of languages I think were very

questionable. He was there to basically implement a government agenda.”41

Like Rymer, who had been appointed in a similar manner more than twenty-five years earlier,

Freeman was not an expert in the languages field. Yet for Freeman, this was considered an

advantage, not a disadvantage: “One of the factors that helped me to be appointed was that I

knew nothing about languages. I had no previous experience. So I could come in, in a way,

clean. And no one had any leverage over me. And nor was the community able to squeeze me

in one way or another.”42 He recalls that he was appointed with a specific purpose. “He

[Hannan] said it was a mission, to actually revise the structure of the school. Because it had

become a bit… separate from everything else that was going on. It was running its own race.

So, I was appointed, and I had to sort of become part of the whole process of bringing the

school into the modern times.”43

38 Interview with Bill and Lorna Hannan, 2013. 39 Ibid. 40 Interview with Anne Eckstein, 2013. 41 Interview with George Panousieris, 2013. 42 Interview with Gil Freeman, 2013. 43 Ibid.


181

In his first report to the Annual General meeting, Freeman acknowledged the work of

Abiuso: “[T]he school experienced significant growth and diversification during the last

decade – the period during which Joe was Principal and there are many features of the school

today which stand as a legacy to his work.”44 His first impressions of the school were very

positive: “In my visits to centres I cannot fail to be impressed by the warmth and vitality of

the centres I visit, by the eagerness of students and staff and cultural vigor of the programmes.

It is a privilege to work in such a school.”45

When Freeman started in the job, the VSL delivered classes in 34 languages in 20 centres.46

That year, the total enrolment at the school was 10,749 with the greatest enrolments in

Chinese (Mandarin), Vietnamese, Turkish and Greek.47 The Head Office of the VSL had

recently been relocated from Cheltenham North Primary School to Carlton Primary School in

Rathdowne Street (now known as Carlton Gardens Primary School). Freeman recalls that he

was not prepared for its meagre resources: “We were working out of Carlton Primary School

in one and a half rooms. It was shocking.”48 The processes and procedures that he found at

the school were also less than perfect: “The picture I have of that stage was that it wasn't

chaotic, but it just wasn't terribly clearly documented about how classes would be set up and

how teachers would be appointed and the curriculum would be developed… I came in in a

situation where it had actually experienced quite significant growth, but it wasn't terribly well

orchestrated or coordinated.”49

6.1.7 The 1991 review of the VSL

In his first circular to centres in early 1991, Freeman announced that the Chief General

Manager of the Education Department would be establishing a review of the VSL. “There is

much that needs to be achieved in the LOTE program in Victorian education and it seems as

44 VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Principal’s Report to the Annual General Meeting’, 18 March 1991, VSL archives. 45 Ibid. 46 Ministry of Education, Victoria, ‘Victorian School of Languages Students’ Information Circular – 1991’, VSL archives. 47 Department of School Education, Victoria, Languages other than English in government schools 1991, Victoria, 1992, p. 9. 48 Interview with Gil Freeman, 2013. 49 Ibid.


182

though the Ministry is confident that the VSL can be a major player in this process.”50 The

Education Department announced that the goals of the review would be to consider:

the operation of the VSL as part of an integrated delivery system for LOTE on a district, regional and Statewide basis. It will make recommendations on redesigning services to support LOTE provision in country or isolated settings; ensure provision of low incidence languages not offered in mainstream settings; extend provision to primary schools; and extend provision to school hours. 51

The Victorian Secondary Teachers’ Association (VSTA) supported the establishment of the

review, although its statement was ambiguous and suggested that the review was proposed to

rectify several problems at the school: “In recent years the VSTA has been concerned that the

VSL has not realised its full potential for a variety of reasons… Consequently it is looking to

the review to facilitate acceptable and agreed democratic decision making procedures which

will result in a more accountable and effective school.”52 At this stage it was unclear what the

VSTA was actually alluding to.

In May 1991, Victoria’s Minister for Education and training, Barry Pullen, outlined the state

government’s plans for LOTE education. “The aim is to make the study of languages other

than English available to all students in Victorian Government primary schools and to make

the study of a second language a required study for all students in Years 7-10.”53 At the time,

only about two thirds of secondary schools had compulsory LOTE programs at year 7 level.54

The Office of Schools Administration reported that one of its Priority Tasks was to establish

policies designed to expand and rationalise the teaching of “priority Asian and European

languages and to coordinate the work of the Correspondence School and the Victorian School

of Languages in teaching LOTE.”55 This was significant for two reasons: languages defined

as community languages were no longer a priority, and there was a proposal for the VSL and

the Correspondence School to work together.

The VSL Review Panel was chaired by Bill Griffiths, Assistant General Manager of the

School Programs Division. In his Draft Report of the Review, Griffiths made a number of

50 G Freeman, February 20 1991, VSL archives. 51 Schools Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 5, 25 March 1991, p. 3, Schools Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 12, 22 July 1991, p. 3. 52 VSTA, ‘VSTA response on the draft report of the review of the Victorian School of Languages’, 6 August 1991, p. 1, donated by Mrs Fran Reddan. 53 Schools Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 14, 19 August 1991, p. 4. 54 Schools Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 11, 24 June 1991, p. 4. 55 Office of Schools Administration Annual Report 1990-1991, p. 34.


183

statements about the school and its role in provision of language programs in Victoria. In

light of Minister Pullen’s proposals to improve the availability of LOTE study to Victorian

students, the Office of Schools Administration aimed to develop an integrated approach to

LOTE delivery in the State, including out of school providers such as the Correspondence

School and the VSL. Griffiths explained that the VSL was expected to have two major roles

in state-wide LOTE provision: the first being to provide advice to the School Programs

Division on LOTE policy and planning and second, to assist mainstream schools to plan and

implement LOTE programs. Griffiths made it clear that the government was keen to strike a

balance between the mainstream school system and the VSL in the provision of language

education: “It must be stressed that none of the recommendations in the report is intended to

obviate the responsibility of mainstream schools to make appropriate provision for LOTE

education in keeping with the Minister’s statement.”56

The Draft Report made many recommendations that addressed issues concerned with the

VSL’s financial matters, site agreements with schools, enrolment procedures, centres and

annexes, and curriculum and professional development. In addition, it also made

recommendations about staffing, and suggested the establishment of new positions called

Field Supervisor (which would be renamed Area Manager). Furthermore, the report

addressed issues surrounding the qualifications, registration and appointment of teachers. The

Panel noted that in 1991, around 45 per cent of VSL instructors were registered with the

Teachers Registration Board (TRB) and had qualifications in the subject of LOTE. The

remaining instructors varied in their qualifications, with around 35 per cent of instructors

having qualifications in LOTE but not being registered teachers.

The Draft Report also explained rather vaguely that some of its recommendations were

intended to address “continuing industrial problems that have been experienced by the

VSL”.57 It can be surmised that the report is referring to events in early 1991, when it was

reported that despite many attempts, the school had failed in its efforts to form a Local

Administrative Committee (LAC). The Ministry had therefore “indicated to the Industrial

Relations Commission that an unresolved dispute has occurred and it has placed this matter

56 Office of Schools Administration, 19 June 1991, p. 1. 57 Ibid.


184

in front of the Commission seeking an urgent hearing.”58 A flow on effect of this dispute was

that certain monetary allowances had not been allocated to the school. VSL staff recall that

the industrial dispute in question primarily came as the result of intense competition for

senior management positions at the school. One unsuccessful applicant ran an ongoing

complaint and took a petition to the VSTA, which divided staff at the school, and this

hindered the forming of the LAC.59

6.1.8 School council “reform” or whitewash?

In the Draft Report, Griffiths also suggested that the structure of the VSL school council

needed revising. “The VSL School Council, because of its statewide role, has experienced

difficulties in meeting the requirements relevant to all other school councils in the areas of

eligibility for membership and procedures for conducting elections.”60 Also, in light of the

fact that the VSL school council needed to be a statewide advisory body on LOTE education,

Griffiths made a number of recommendations for reform of the school’s council. The VSTA

supported this reform.61 The VSL School Council met to discuss the recommendations and

decided that centre members could give their input about proposed changes to School

Council. Of all the recommendations in the review, the issues about the governance of the

school were the most contentious.62

While on paper, the Draft Report’s announcements about the proposed reform to the School

Council may have seemed like a natural and reasonable progression in the upgrading of the

school, some suggest that it was being used as a way to address some unresolved issues. As

mentioned above, some VSL staff were upset about Freeman’s appointment as Principal.

They believed he was not suitably qualified in the languages field and controversially, the

appointment was made outside of the Education Department’s official procedures. Freeman

himself admits that his appointment was made in an unorthodox manner: “Bill [Hannan] was

58 VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages, School Council Principal’s Report, 10 April 1991’, p. 4, document donated by Mr A. Akgüner 59 Interview with “Edward”, 2014. 60 Office of Schools Administration, 19 June 1991, p. 2. 61 VSTA 1991, p. 3. 62 G Freeman, 12 August 1991, VPRS 11790 P1 Unit 439 92/080, Victorian School of Languages.


185

looking for a Principal, so he just appointed me. No elections, he just said, you know, you've

had it too good for too long, you’ve got to come and do some real work.”63

Some remember that when the School Council expressed its disapproval about the decision to

appoint Freeman, the backlash came swiftly:

School Council wasn’t very happy so Bill Hannan got rid of the School Council. He abolished it. This was in 1992. So they set up an interim School Council. There were no elections of members or anything, they just appointed people. And the interim School Council appointed the interim selection panel. And they appointed Gil Freeman. Then they reconstituted the School Council with a slightly different composition.64

As a newcomer to the field of languages education, Freeman’s unorthodox appointment was

made even more controversial by the Department’s decision to replace the VSL School

Council with a more compliant group of people as a way to facilitate the formalisation of his

appointment. It is suggested that these events were papered over and hidden under changes

called “School Council Reform” which saw the School Council take on a broader

membership. Even though the school had recently been recognised as a stand-alone school

with its own school council, these events were an unwelcome and unpleasant reminder that

the school was not entirely an independent, stand-alone school. Unlike regular government

schools, which tended to be administered on a regional level, the VSL still remained under

the control of a group of powerful senior Education Department officials who were at the top

of the hierarchy.

A few months later, when Hannan, as General Manager of School Programs Division, wrote

to VSL staff to notify them about the outcome of the review, he emphasised that “there is a

clear commitment to the work of the VSL and to maintaining and enhancing its role within

the Victorian education system.”65 He included the good news that the school’s program for

1992 would include the addition of three new languages, bringing the total number of

languages offered at the school to 37. He also announced the opening of new centres. Other

changes included an increased payment to teachers of VCE classes, extra resources for

administrative support at each Centre well as several program grants from the School

63 Interview with Gil Freeman, 2013. 64 Interview with “Edward”, 2014. 65 B Hannan, 23 October 1991, VSL archives.


186

Programs Division. In July 1992 it was announced that Freeman had been officially

appointed to the position of Principal.66

6.1.9 Community demands for new languages continue

The school continued to receive requests from community groups for the introduction of new

languages, in the same way that it had since the 1970s. Still, the main driving force was

community demand. As Freeman remembers, “We responded to the community. We didn't

respond to edict. We basically chose languages we wanted to put on, according to community

demand.”67

In 1991, the school was approached by a group of representatives from the Bengali language

and Cultural Institute in regard to the establishment of classes in the Bengali language. As in

previous years, the Principal’s response indicated that it was necessary for the group to

provide evidence of adequate student demand, in the form of a list of student names. It was

also necessary to provide a course outline for each proposed class, and completed staff

application forms. Unlike in previous decades, however, the Principal now made it clear that

the school was operating within tight restrictions, one of which was financial: “While the

VSL tries to assist with these requests, it has to work within certain constraints. These are:

the budget provided by the State Government; the curriculum guidelines of the Ministry of

Education; the restriction on religious and political issues within the curriculum; and the

guidelines on appointment of staff.”68

In 1991, similar requests came from members of other communities, including the Kurdish

Association of Victoria and the Lao Association of Victoria. Again, in his responses,

Freeman emphasised the financial constraints of the school: “the government has not

determined the budget for the school for 1991/1992 and so there is a great deal of uncertainty

in what we are able to manage to add to our list of languages.”69

66 Schools Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 13, 20 July 1992, p. 351. 67 Interview with Gil Freeman, 2013. 68 G Freeman, 12 June 1991, VSL archives. 69 G Freeman, 2 August 1991, VSL archives.


187

In 1992, the VSL offered tuition in 37 languages. Kurdish, Swedish and Hebrew were

established, although it was not the first time that Swedish and Hebrew had been taught at the

school.70 Later in the year, Korean was also added.71 The purpose of the Korean classes was

quite unique in that they were was intended to cater to the language maintenance needs of

Korean children who had been adopted by Victorian families.72

6.1.10 The creation of the Area Manager positions

In October 1992, several senior positions at the VSL were advertised. These were a second

Vice Principal as well as eleven Area Managers.73 The Area Manager positions were

intended to replace the part time Supervisor positions. These were of vital importance to the

school:

The Area Manager positions arise from the VSL Review and establish a rational, state-wide, and expert group to manage the VSL operations on a decentralised basis. Currently the VSL Principal has the job of holding the whole show together and with a volatile mixture of ethnic groups, old power groups still exercising influence and the need to deal with the new demands which will arise because of the current staffing shake-out there is an urgent need to share this management.74

Aleksandra Ceferin was one of the new Area Managers at the school. She recalls it as an

exciting role: “Reaffirming some of the principles already in place and establishing others

was a stimulating, exciting and exhilarating time. The weekly meeting of Area Managers was

energising and something to look forward to.” 75 Freeman remembers the Area Managers as

being “the backbone” of the VSL staff.76

The replacement of the part time Supervisor positions with the Area Manager positions

contributed to the gradual improvement of the school’s service and the maximising of its

human resources: “There was more time to spend during the week and developing links with

the high school; promoting the languages and getting people to write articles for the various

70 VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages School Council 19 February 1992 Principal’s report’, VSL archives. 71 Department of Education Annual Report 1992-1993, p. 71. 72 G Freeman, 20 October 1993, VSL archives. 73 Schools Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 18, 5 October 1992, p. 407. 74 G Freeman, 2 December 1992, VSL archives. 75 Personal communication with Aleksandra Ceferin, 2013. 76 Interview with Gil Freeman, 2013.


188

community newspapers; more time to develop policies, to refine the processes, to implement

department policies in relation to student welfare or curriculum etc.”77

People agree that the establishment of the Area Manager positions was a key event in

improving the organisation. “Prior to that, the VSL was a sessional, part-time school.

Everything about it was sessional and part time, therefore it was on the fringe. Having full

time positions - apart from the Principal and a few head office staff - I think just consolidated

the organisation. It gave the VSL some scope and some standing with regular schools. I

think it was an evolutionary step in our professionalism.”78

Around this time, the VSL was finally able to resolve the long running issue of payment

arrangements for teaching staff. An agreement was made between the school and the

Department of Education, whereby a new system would allow sessional language teachers to

be paid on a monthly basis. It was also at this time that the enrolment process for students

was streamlined. A new “paperless” system utilising bar codes and student numbers was

introduced.79

6.1.11 Staff reflections on the reforms to the VSL

Many VSL staff believe that things changed for the better around this period. Staff agree that

having official protocols in place was important. “Bringing in the Supervisors and the Area

Managers, these kinds of appointments were made properly. And if you have protocols, and

it's clear, fair, transparent, you avoid all sorts of nonsense.”80 Other reforms also improved

the image and status of the school: “Freeman started to standardise things. He established the

Curriculum Committee. He also assigned the task of writing the syllabi to different people.

Books were produced and printed. So I think Gil Freeman should be credited a lot and the

school actually refined its image. [Prior to that] it was just like another ethnic school. An

ethnic school wearing the government garb.”81 Others go even further and suggest that

Freeman's era at the Victorian School of Languages “represents a landmark”.82

77 Interview with “Edward”, 2013 78 Interview with “Milan”, 2013. 79 G Freeman, 14 October 1992, VPRS 11790 P1 Unit 439 92/080, Victorian School of Languages. 80 Interview with Jenny Wilkinson, 2013. 81 Interview with “Redmond”, 2013. 82 Personal communication with Aleksandra Ceferin, 2013.


189

Others saw it differently. For some, the atmosphere and the spirit of the VSL “totally changed”

under Freeman’s administration.83 They questioned his level of commitment to supporting

multilingualism, multiculturalism, and the rights of the ethnic communities.

6.1.12 A change of government brings more uncertainty and tension

In October 1992, the Victorian Labour government under Joan Kirner was defeated by the

Liberal Party and Jeff Kennett became Premier of Victoria. Prior to the election, Kennett had

stated his intention to continue support for the VSL.84 But the change in government brought

more uncertainty to an organisation that had elements of uncertainty built into its emerging

structure. With a newly appointed principal, and an interim council, and being under review

by the Education Department, the school was in a tenuous position.

The school’s senior staff were also in a tenuous position. To complicate matters, the new

Minister for Education in the Kennett government decided that the Directorate of School

Education (DSE) would undertake another review of the school. This review would examine

the management structure of the VSL during the 1993 school year. For this reason, the Vice

Principal and Area Manager positions would be filled on an acting basis only, and then be

reviewed and readvertised in late 1993.85

The change of government brought new ideas about education to Victoria, and as part of its

approach to economic rationalism, sweeping reforms were made to the state’s education

system. Ideas of economic rationalism and neo-conservatism were not unique to Victoria; neo

liberal reform was making significant changes to education systems in other countries such as

the United States and the United Kingdom. In Victoria, there was an underlying notion that

the state education system had been too well resourced and it was targeted for dramatic

budget cuts. Controversially, the Kennett government closed 351 state schools and more than

8000 teachers resigned or took voluntary retrenchment.86

83 Interview with Mr Atilla Akgüner, 2014. 84 G Freeman, 14 October 1992, VPRS 11790 P1 Unit 439 92/080, Victorian School of Languages. 85 F Peck, 11 December 1992, VSL archives. 86 A Spaull, ‘The end of the state school system? Education and the Kennett government’, in B Costar and N Economou (eds), The Kennett Revolution: Victorian Politics in the 1990s, UNSW Press, Sydney, 1999, 214-224, p. 218.


190

Freeman recalls that the change of government placed him in an awkward position:

So, here I was, with this burgeoning growth and I came in at the time when the Labour government lost office. So I had Jeff Kennett as the Premier, which in itself made for some very interesting developments. And the Minister of Education, he was looking over my shoulder. I had to report directly to the Director. So it was very tricky, politically. And they were probably a bit suspicious of me because I'd come from a Labor government background and appointment. But they left me alone, except for one or two occasions.87

One of the occasions where Freeman was not left alone was on the topic of the teaching of

Macedonian. The Victorian government issued a directive about the naming of this language.

The events surrounding Macedonian will be explored later in this thesis in Chapter 7.

6.1.13 The push to continue with the proposed reforms

It was in this tense climate that Freeman feared that the proposed reforms to the VSL would

not be made. He urged the new Minister to push ahead with the structural changes that had

been recommended in the VSL Review. In preparation for a meeting with the Secretary to the

Minister, he prepared a briefing that highlighted the school’s recent reforms and associated

achievements. The recent history of the school was explained briefly: it had gone through a

growth period in the 1980s, “turmoil in 1990”, a review period in 1991/1992 and changes

were now underway.88

In highlighting the recent reforms, however, it was also necessary to articulate the previous

problems with the operations of the school. A list was prepared for the Minister’s Secretary

that attested to the major changes that had been made at the school since 1990. These were

gathered from a group of key education department officials, academics, administrators and

representatives from the Ethnic Affairs Commission. The group suggested that prior to 1992,

and particularly in 1990, the VSL had been “made up of a number of separate, relatively

unco-ordinated centres, and in some cases virtually autonomous “ethnic” schools.”89 In 1992,

however, the VSL was described as “a single multi-campus school with common and agreed

87 Interview with Gil Freeman, 2013. 88 VSL ‘Victorian School of Languages. Issues to the raised in the meeting with Mr Peter Kirby, Secretary to the Minister’, no date, VSL archives. 89 Ibid.


191

policies, programs and administration.” Regarding the school’s leadership, prior to 1992, and

particularly in 1990, it was described as “very divided and unable to provide effective and

concerted leadership”, whereas in 1992 it was said to be “a unified team”. In relation to the

process of staff appointments prior to 1992, the comments were even more damning: “Staff

appointments [were] often on the basis of factional pressure, family connection, or links to

community leaders”, whereas in 1992 it was “on the basis of clear guidelines which are

carefully followed”. The list went on to describe the differences between old and new

procedures for curriculum writing, professional development, enrolment procedures, financial

affairs and so on. The list was clearly intended to demonstrate that under Freeman’s new

leadership, the school had made great improvements in its professionalism and credibility as

a legitimate school.

Given the tense atmosphere of uncertainty about the school’s future, it was also necessary for

Freeman to highlight the differences between the VSL and the state’s many Ethnic Schools.

In 1993, there were some 169 ethnic schools operating in Victoria and these received funding

to teach a total of 20,121 students. In a time when the VSL’s finances were being squeezed,

Freeman saw the ethnic schools as a threat. He prepared a series of points for the Minister’s

Secretary that outlined the ways that the VSL differed from the Ethnic Schools in terms of its

systems of accountability, ideology, guidelines, purpose and role within the broader

landscape of language education in Victoria. However it was pointed out that since 1991, the

VSL and the Ethnic Schools had established a “close working relationship”90 as a result of

cross membership on committees and also due to the fact that the Ethnic Schools had a

representative on the VSL school council. As a result, it was stated that there was now

knowledge sharing in terms of curriculum development and resources. Furthermore, it was

stated that “new developments were complementary and not competitive.”

While all of this was going on, there was also uncertainty surrounding the school’s budget for

1993. In late 1992, the School Council had been told that it would be required to make

approximately 10 per cent in “savings” for the 1993 school year, representing around

$136,613 for the first half of the 1993 school year.91 Mainstream schools were also expected

to make similar cost saving measures. In looking for ways to make these savings, Freeman

pointed out that the VSL operation was already very efficient, with very low overheads, and 90 Ibid. 91 D Guest, 12 February 1993, VSL archives.


192

that the VSL was an estimated 50 per cent cheaper to run per capita than a mainstream

school.92 However it was agreed that the cost savings would be made in a variety of ways

across the operations of the school. The School Council decided to establish a policy of a

minimum class size of 15, which would be implemented across the school. This would allow

savings to be made through amalgamations of existing classes. Exceptions would be made in

country areas, where only once class existed in a centre or where there was only one class for

a particular language. Other savings were made across other areas of the school’s

administration.93

In 1993, Freeman stated that with the significant changes, the school was “being adapted to

fit new circumstances within the government system.”94 On the one hand, it was going

through a period of growth in terms of student enrolments, centres and languages. On the

other hand, the school was “now able to play an increasingly significant role in the

implementation of emerging government policies”,95 namely the push towards increased

provision of Asian languages. With its new structure, the VSL was well poised to tackle these

new challenges.

The Head Office of the VSL moved to a larger, more centrally located premises in Albert

Road, South Melbourne in time for the beginning of the 1993 school year. With its new

profile and senior management team in place, the VSL promoted itself as a fully professional

outfit with the publication of a glossy brochure. Featuring the school’s new logo, the

brochure highlighted the school’s work and outlined the languages taught and the centres in

operation. Including portraits, it introduced its 11 Area Managers, two Vice Principals and

Principal.96 The school was keen to project its new image as the state government’s official

centre of expertise in language education.

Kleinhenz recalls that she worked very hard during those years. “There were a lot of

structural changes that were made. We did a lot of work in curriculum. We basically had

course outlines for everything we did. I thought we did a lot of very good work… I did a lot

of professional development work with the teachers and we had a coordinator at primary 92 G Freeman, 18 December 1992, VSL archives. 93 D Guest, 12 February 1993, VSL archives. 94 VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual General Meeting, 26 May 1993, Principal’s Report’, VSL archives. 95 Ibid. 96 Directorate of School Education, ‘Victorian School of Languages 1992’ brochure, VSL archives.


193

level, a coordinator at secondary level. And some of the teachers said they got more

professional development in the VSL and, some of them were teaching in high schools as

well.”97

6.1.14 The government’s prioritisation of languages

In March 1993 the Minister for Education established the Ministerial Advisory Council on

Languages Other Than English (MACLOTE) and it became the main source of advice on all

aspects of language policy and implementation. As one of its first tasks the Council

categorised languages as a means to plan language programs in mainstream schools and

alternative providers such as the VSL and the Distance Education Centre (DEC). It identified

eight key languages for mainstream schools. These were Chinese, French, German,

Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Modern Greek and Vietnamese.98 In 1993, these were the

languages in the greatest demand. This did not mean that the priority languages were the only

ones to be valued in Victoria: “Although the Directorate of School Education… concentrates

its efforts on the key languages in mainstream schools, it hopes to maintain breadth of high

quality programs and language offerings with the support of other providers.”99

Language teachers remember that the prioritisation of languages had a detrimental effect on

many community languages programs that were taught in government schools: “One of the

Principals decided to stop the primary program [in Macedonian] that had a fantastic teacher,

and the work that she had done with those children was remarkable. And that particular

primary school program was cut because they thought, ‘Oh well, it’s not a priority language.’

[So] they introduced one of the priority languages.”100 With the closure of these mainstream

community language programs, many students would have no option but to enrol in either the

VSL or ethnic schools to continue their education in non “priority” languages.

97 Interview with Elizabeth Kleinhenz, 2013. 98 Department of Education Annual Report 1992-1993, p. 69-70. 99 Department of School Education, Victoria, Languages other than English in government schools 1993, Victoria, 1994, p. 3. 100 Interview with “Elisaveta”, 2013.


194

6.1.15 The VSL and the Correspondence School merge

In late 1992, the VSL’s head office had moved to Albert Road, South Melbourne where it

was situated on the same site as the offices of the Correspondence School.101 Even though the

two schools had been situated in the same premises, they had concentrated on their own

distinct roles. “It was anomalous that two agencies were involved in the provision of LOTE,

and were located in the same building, yet were located in different schools and not able to

work together efficiently.”102 In December 1993, it was announced that the language

component of the Correspondence School would be transferred to the VSL.103 In 1993, the

Correspondence School provided courses in seven languages to 1414 students.104 In 1994, it

was given a new name, Distance Education Centre Victoria (DECV).

The VSL School Council acknowledged the importance of the merger of the two schools:

“the single most significant change to the VSL apart from those instituted through the review

has been the incorporation of the LOTE section of the Distance Education Centre into the

VSL.”105 There were 16.5 equivalent full time (EFT) staff in the LOTE section of the DECV

who joined the VSL when the two schools merged. The DSE conducted a review into both

the VSL and the DECV, to clarify the long-term structures for both of the schools.

The VSL School Council’s submission to the review observed that the existing courses

delivered through the DECV tended to be uneven in quality. “Many courses have been added

to over the years so they represent a patchwork of various teaching methodologies, resources

and assessment arrangements.”106 To address this issue, VSL and DECV staff established a

framework to guide the rewriting and restructuring of the DECV courses in accordance with

DSE guidelines.

In 1994, the VSL School Council President reflected that after the VSL/DECV review, the

school was now faced with an environment “in which all VSL resources must be rationalised 101 VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual General Meeting, 26 May 1993, President’s Report’, VSL archives. 102 VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual General Meeting, School Council, May 1994, Principal’s Report’, p. 7, VSL archives. 103 J Campbell, Across the distance, 1909-2009: Celebrating 100 years of the Distance Education Centre Victoria, Distance Education Centre Victoria, Thornbury, 2009, p. 81. 104 Department of Education Annual Report 1993-1994, p. 51. 105 VSL, ‘VSL School Council. Submission to the committee reviewing the VSL and the DEC (Draft), 18 May 1994’, p. 21, VSL archives. 106 Ibid, p. 4.


195

so that a seamless LOTE system is available to LOTE clients. This will be a particular

challenge for the total VSL School community and of necessity requires all to be client

focused and to operate collaboratively and co-operatively with each other and with other

providers.”107

On reflection, VSL staff believe that the amalgamation of the two schools was a key event

that brought the two schools a greater level of recognition and authority:

I think it was a brilliant move, it was quite visionary. They were right, this was the best way to go for language provision. It gave us a broader reach. In terms of our professional standing in the educational world, we become a significant player. So that critical mass allowed us to have a say and connection and influence with a whole lot more things than we previously had.108

It also was a more cost effective way of delivering its services to students: “I think it was a

better use of resources. It helps to have a one-stop shop. With those two combined, it

provides a better choice. It’s also cost-effective because distance education costs more to

administer.” 109

6.1.16 1994: the VSL in a powerful position

By 1994, the VSL’s operations had grown yet again. The number of languages offered at the

school had reached forty. Total student enrolments, including students enrolled at 26 centres

as well as through the DECV, reached 13,654.110 Just as it had done in 1935, the school

continued to break new ground in the diversity of its language programs. That year, in

response to requests from the Ethiopian community, Amharic was established at the VSL. An

event was held to launch its inauguration, which was attended by several distinguished guests,

including Mr Phil Honeywood, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Ethnic Affairs.

The invitation to the event emphasised the significance of this development, stating:

“Amharic is the first exclusively African language introduced into State Schools.”111 Again,

the Education Department acknowledged that the VSL had made a “significant contribution

107 VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual General Meeting, School Council, May 1994, President’s report’, 18 May 1994, VSL archives. 108 Interview with “Milan”, 2013. 109 Interview with “Edward”, 2013. 110 Department of Education Annual Report 1994-1995, p. 63. 111 G Freeman, 21 July 1994, VSL archives.


196

to the range of languages offered across the State” and that it was the only school in Victoria

to offer formal study at VCE level for many languages.112

That year, the VSL was selected to be one of Victoria’s Schools of the Future.113 This was a

high profile program that was introduced by the new Minister of Education, Don Hayward as

part of his reform agenda. It was first implemented as a pilot program for a number of

selected schools. Its long-term aim was for state schools to become self-managing and

partially corporatised, with greater powers given to school Principals.114

By 1994, the VSL was under the control of the Quality Programs Division of the Directorate

of School Education. This meant that the VSL had the capability for immediate

responsiveness to government decisions and curriculum directions. It also facilitated forward

planning of LOTE provision throughout the state, in complementarity to other providers. It

put the VSL the position of being able to trial and pilot government initiatives and programs.

Because of its single focus on the area of languages, the VSL had a high concentration of

expertise in languages. It made its curriculum resources, professional development and

expertise in LOTE available to other providers.115

Despite the controversy surrounding his appointment, Freeman’s era can be seen as a time

when the school achieved a greater level of professionalism, status and standing within the

educational community in Victoria. Under his leadership, the school’s structure and the

School Council was revised and strengthened. It became widely recognised that the school

would play a significant leadership role in the statewide provision of language education in

Victoria. Furthermore, this period of the school’s history coincided with the changes brought

in by the Kennett government that saw schools forced into new level of financial and

economic accountability. These changes were taking place within a wider trend towards neo-

conservatism and economic rationalism both in Australia and abroad. The long-term aim for

Victorian state schools was for them to start to resemble self-managing corporations and

Principals were expected to take on a more powerful role.

112 Directorate of School Education, Languages other than English in government schools 1994, Quality Programs Division, Directorate of School Education, Victoria, 1995, p. 59. 113 VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual General Meeting, School Council, May 1994, President’s report’, 18 May 1994, VSL archives. 114 Spaull 1999, p. 216. 115 VSL, ‘VSL School Council. Submission to the committee reviewing the VSL and the DEC (Draft), 18 May 1994, p. 1-2, VSL archives.


197

6.1.17 Frank Merlino becomes Principal

Freeman resigned as Principal of the VSL in January 1995 and Frank Merlino, who was

Deputy Principal at the time, stepped in as Acting Principal at short notice. By the time

Merlino assumed the role of Principal of the VSL in 1995, the school was in a much more

powerful position than ever before. Merlino had a long history of working at the school. He

had begun at the SSML as a teacher of Italian in 1971 at the Brunswick High School centre

before becoming Supervisor and then Deputy Principal. In his Annual Report in mid 1995,

Merlino acknowledged Freeman who had “worked tirelessly to improve the profile of the

school and to improve the quality of its service.”116

6.1.18 Drawing the line at 1995: a methodological choice

In the interests of unbiased and objective historical scholarship, the author of this thesis has

deliberately made a methodological decision to end the narrative in 1995 with the

appointment of Frank Merlino as Principal. It would not be appropriate or prudent to continue

to examine Merlino’s period because at the time of writing this thesis, Merlino remains as the

VSL Principal. It is also important to note that it was with the support of Merlino and the

VSL School Council that this research project was funded.

As scholars note, there is now pressure in contemporary historical scholarship to bring

narratives up to the present in order to “assert the relevance of a much further past”.117

However crafting a narrative that lacks a clear moment of closure presents a unique set of

difficulties. If the period being examined is too recent, there is an absence of hindsight and

perspective, and the researcher may be unable to fully understand the impact and importance

of current events. There is undoubtedly difficulty in maintaining an objective and unbiased

stance when events are still in the process of unfolding. Furthermore, there is a dearth of

discussion in the field about the methodological considerations involved in writing about

116 VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual Reporting Meeting Wednesday 24 May 1995, Principal’s report’, p. 9, VSL archives. 117 Potter and Romano 2012, p. 4.


198

recent events.118 More importantly, for this project, there is an absence of other perspectives

about the VSL with which to contextualise or support this research.

Section 2: Theoretical interpretations

6.2.1 The institutionalised contexts of the VSL

Prior to 1988, the VSL had made many important gains in its quest for achieving legitimacy.

Its external institutionalised contexts accurately mimicked those of mainstream state schools,

according it a degree of legitimacy and status. Despite this, the Victorian education system

still had not, up until that time actually made any formal provision for a state specialist

language school in its framework. The SSML was not in fact an official school. It was simply

a “service” provided by the Education Department. Therefore in order for it to survive, it was

crucial for the school to somehow secure its place in the system as an official, legitimate state

school. Without that status, the school was still situated precariously on the outskirts of the

wider institutional framework, without an official category to belong to. As Meyer and

Rowan explain, “organizations which innovate in important structural ways bear considerable

costs in legitimacy.”119

From January 1988, when the school was renamed the Victorian School of Languages and

upgraded to an official government school, the VSL was able to cement itself in its own

unique place in the wider institutional system. As Meyer would say, the VSL had found its

niche within the general categorical system.120 This formal recognition was the final step in

the legitimisation of the school’s organisational façade that the SSML community had long

campaigned for. This official change in the formal structure of the school lifted its status and

position in a profound way. As explained previously, gaining a connection to wider

institutional system is necessary for an institution to achieve status, resources and financial

support. However a certain degree of conformity is necessary. Goodson and Anstead believe

that this can lead innovative institutions to regress and conform to the categorical norm.121

However, in the case of the VSL there is little evidence that this has occurred to date. In fact

118 Potter and Romano 2012, pp. 1 – 19. 119 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 353. 120 Meyer 1980, p. 49. 121 Goodson & Anstead 2012, p. 103.


199

the opposite seems to be true, with the VSL pioneering some of the most innovative

approaches to language learning in Victoria. These will be discussed in Chapter 7.

Rather than being forced to regress and conform to the categorical norm of the usual state

school, the VSL was able to retain its own unique form as a specialist, complementary

provider of languages programs. It managed to do this because it had already carved out a

niche and successfully proven its function within the framework of the state education system

over many decades. Yet this did not mean that the VSL was free to simply go on its own way

without conforming with one key agenda of the Education Department: the choice of the

school’s new Principal. Gil Freeman was specially selected by senior Education Department

officials because he was considered “neutral” and therefore the best choice for steering the

VSL into its next period of raised professionalism and status. As suggested in the archival

documents and interviews, there are suggestions that the allegiances of previous headmasters

were closely tied to particular ethnic groups, and that this culture within the school had

served to isolate it. In order to lift its level of legitimacy and status within the state school

system, it was considered essential for the VSL’s Principal to operate above the political

interests of individual ethnic groups. It could be argued, however, that the Education

Department’s unorthodox way of handling Freeman’s appointment could have compromised

this legitimacy.

Yet the VSL’s formalisation did not automatically provide security for the school’s status or

its prospects for survival. There were several key institutional ideologies that diminished in

their level of support during this period. The Victorian government’s increasing commitment

towards funding for privately run community language schools represented a significant

threat to the external institutional contexts that underpinned support for the VSL. Funding of

non-government complementary providers of language education can be understood as a

significant erosion in the level of support and interest in public education, institutional

contexts that are crucial to the VSL. Freeman was aware that the VSL’s future prospects

rested upon the continuing support of these key constituents, and this is why he made a list of

the VSL’s strengths contrasting them with the ethnic schools.

It is also apparent that with the growth of the ethnic schools, these schools had become a

target for representatives of language groups seeking to “graft” heritage language subjects on

to structures within the education system. Some languages grafted themselves on to the


200

ethnic schools and others on to the VSL, and there were occasions when these intersected, as

Elisaveta explained in the case of Macedonian in Thomastown. The complex relationship

between the VSL and the ethnic schools will be explored further in Chapter 7.

The era of the VSL also coincided with the erosion of another key institutional context in the

landscape of languages education. During the period from the late 1980s and throughout the

1990s, Australia’s “macro” language policies were heavily influenced by micro-economic

reform.122 Australia’s official language policies underwent a shift towards vocational goals as

reasons for language learning.123 Programs that were thought to give a poor economic return

on their funding investment came under scrutiny. Funding was cut for heritage language

teaching programs, with policy increasingly stressing the need to limit federal funding of

language programs to specific languages considered important for trade purposes. 124

Furthermore, it became the government’s policy to provide specific funding for languages

that were considered “priority languages”. Community languages were no longer considered

a priority. For the VSL, this shift in policy could have represented an erosion of a once solid

institutional support for education programs for a diverse range of languages. Without

ongoing support among these critical external institutional constituents, the legitimacy of the

VSL’s programs could have been undermined. As Reid reminds us, “Latin did not collapse

because of failure on the part of teachers.”125 It is the powerful external institutions that

determine whether a curriculum area is likely to survive or not.

Yet as explained by “Elisaveta”, when the number of languages offered in the mainstream

system was restricted by the implementation of a “macro” policy that supported a smaller

number of priority languages, many community languages programs in mainstream schools

were forced to close. It can be surmised that for the students involved in these programs, the

only option was to shift to the VSL or to the ethnic schools. While this language policy

reduced the mainstream system’s ability to provide these programs, paradoxically, it did not

negatively affect the VSL’s student enrolment numbers in these languages. As the established

and accepted complementary provider of languages not taught in the mainstream system, the

VSL had long made claims to expertise in delivering these “non priority” languages. As the 122 Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009, p. 17. 123 Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels 1995, p. 6. 124 Willoughby 2006, p. 5. 125 W Reid, ‘Curricular Topics As Institutional Categories: Implications for Theory and Research in the History and Sociology of School Subjects’, in S Ball and I Goodson, Defining the Curriculum: Histories and Ethnographies, London, Routledge, 2012, pp. 67-76, p. 75.


201

list of “non priority” languages offered at the VSL continued to be long, the school’s claims

for legitimacy as a custodian and specialist in that group of languages could be maintained.

As indicated in interviews and documents, the school’s operations reached vast proportions

during this period. The number of languages taught, the number of centres operating and the

number of students and staff demonstrated that it was fulfilling a valid and broad function

within the education system. Yet with the amalgamation of the languages section of the

correspondence school, the VSL’s operations expanded yet again. As some suggest, with this

expansion, the school reached a “critical mass”. Broadening the base to this extent provided

the school with an even higher level of legitimacy. The achievement of this perceived

“critical mass” is one aspect of the school’s journey towards legitimacy that does not seem to

be explained by Meyer and Rowan’s theories. This represents a limitation in this particular

theoretical lens. This idea will be explored in more detail later.

It can be speculated that many of the institutional contexts surrounding the VSL have actually

changed as a result of the school’s presence. As Meyer and Rowan note, it is possible for

organisations to play an active role in shaping their institutional contexts. This can happen in

two ways. The first is when a powerful organisation forces its immediate relational network

to adapt to its structures and relations. The second is when a powerful organisation builds its

goals and procedures into society as institutional rules.126

It is evident that the VSL has shaped the language landscape in Victoria in both of these ways.

It has pioneered the development of many language programs, and acted as a catalyst for the

accreditation of many languages at senior secondary level. It has provided a valuable

framework for the inclusion of many languages that would otherwise not be taught. Many

VSL staff have been actively involved in the establishment of and development of single

language associations. The VSL has also fostered the development of an increasingly

qualified and professional workforce of language teachers in Victoria, through its

professional development programs and through the establishment of new language programs

that eventually make the transition into the mainstream school system. It is clear that the

broader network of stakeholders in the language education field in Victoria, namely the

mainstream schools, the ethnic schools, language associations, universities and indeed the

126 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 348.


202

Education Department itself, have been forced to adapt their programs, procedures and

operations as a result of the VSL’s presence.

6.3 Conclusion

In this final chapter to trace the historical narrative of the school’s development, it has

become clear that by the end of 1994, the VSL was in a powerful position. It had successfully

undergone reviews and restructures and it had succeeded in claiming its place as a legitimate

and valid organisation. By this time, it had proven its viability and its usefulness as a state

specialist language school. It had also established itself as a leader in the field. Yet the VSL’s

administrators had to work hard to maintain the school’s higher status and legitimated

position. Several of these challenges will be explored further in Chapter 7.

Chapter 7. Discussion: Issues in gaining and maintaining legitimacy, answers to research questions, and contribution to knowledge

203


7.1 Introduction

The previous three chapters highlighted that the school’s search for legitimacy and status was

at the core of much of its history. They also established that by 1994, the VSL had gained the

legitimacy and status that it long struggled for. However, for the school itself and for the

heritage language subjects that it represented, holding on to that status and legitimacy

involved many challenges. In addition, gaining that legitimacy had a significant impact on the

other providers of language education in Victoria. This chapter takes a step away from the

historical narrative and uses a thematic approach. It will again utilise the theoretical lenses

described earlier in Chapter 3 to illuminate and explain the issues surrounding the acquisition

and maintenance of legitimacy for the VSL and for the language communities involved.

The first section in this chapter deals with the way that heritage language groups worked hard

to gain and maintain legitimacy, via their affiliation with the VSL. As shown in previous

chapters, many heritage language groups increased their legitimacy and improved their status

within the Victorian education system, by grafting themselves onto the VSL. This section

will investigate the problems that the language groups encountered in the grafting process. In

previous chapters, there was little scope to delve into this process in detail without distracting

the reader from the broader narrative. It will use Mercurio and Scarino’s ideas to shine a light

on the process that the heritage language subjects went through. It will highlight the ways that

they were standardised and made to conform to established curriculum models in order to

gain the legitimacy they sought.1 This section will also reveal the crucial implications for the

school itself in supporting this process. As Meyer and Rowan’s theory will highlight, it was

in the interests of the school’s ongoing legitimacy and credibility that this standardisation

process succeed.2 It will explain how the school and its heritage language subjects worked

hard to avoid the many risks and pitfalls that could result in illegitimacy. It is important to

1 Mercurio and Scarino 2005. 2 Meyer 1980, p. 48.


204

investigate these issues because they are also critical elements in the school’s journey and its

quest for legitimacy.

The second section of this chapter turns away from language specific issues and looks at the

school as a whole organisation. It deals with the school’s increasing presence as a legitimate

and valid organisation in the language field in Victoria, and explores the changing dynamics

of the VSL’s relationships with other sectors of the education system that resulted from this

higher status. The theories of Meyer and Rowan will again be utilised to illuminate the

impact that the VSL had on its relational networks after it began to occupy a more established

position as a legitimate organisation. As Meyer and Rowan explain, when a powerful

organisation forces its immediate relational network to adapt to its structures and relations,

this network includes its competitors.3 With its increased status and higher profile, the

relationship between the VSL and other providers of language education became increasingly

competitive. From the 1970s onwards, with its expanding presence, the SSML increasingly

came to be seen as a threat to others. Amid the jostling that took place among the providers,

the VSL managed to consolidate its position and gain a more solid footing as an official state

specialist language school. Finally, this section will reveal the positive impact that the VSL

has had on its relational networks.

The final section of this chapter will return to the two main research questions that were

stated at the beginning of this thesis. These are:

1. How did the VSL and its language communities gain and maintain legitimacy within the

education system?

2. How was the VSL shaped by “macro” and “micro” language policy and planning?

This section will draw together all the threads from previous chapters in order to articulate

answers to these theoretical research questions. It will make some broader statements about

the significance of these answers and about the broader contribution of this study in general.

This section will also include comments about the applicability and suitability of the theories

that were chosen to illuminate the research questions in this thesis. It will also include some

reflections about the approach that was adopted and about the ways that these particular

3 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 348.


205

theories either helped or hindered and the limitations that were encountered. Finally, it will

use these reflections as an opportunity to provide advice to future scholars who embark on a

research project about state specialist language schools or about the VSL.

Section 1: Heritage language subjects and the ways they gain and maintain legitimacy

In this section, the ideas developed by Mercurio and Scarino will be used to analyse the

problems that many groups encountered as part of the process of “grafting” onto the VSL;

namely, that they were required to standardise their curriculum and conform to rigid sets of

conditions in order to have their language programs established at the SSML and the VSL.4

It will also reveal the crucial implications for the school itself in supporting this process. As

Meyer’s theory will highlight, the school’s ongoing legitimacy and credibility also rested on

its programs appearing to adhere to what was considered appropriate by all external

constituents.5

7.1.1 Conformity and compliance and the maintenance of legitimacy

Evidence suggests that one of the key goals of the VSL is its politically neutral agenda in

languages education. In particular, senior staff sought to avoid involvement in disputes within

national groups. Burnie Rymer also recalled that officials at the Education Department were

“not interested in getting bogged down in politics”.6 In setting out the regulations for the

establishment of new language programs, Arthur Moy clearly articulated the need for syllabi

to be free of political overtones. He stipulated “the need to guard against problems which

could arise from the existence of factional interests within national groups”. 7 Interviewees

support this agenda and believe that it is one of the school’s strengths.8

As a government school, this is one of the most important features that clearly set it apart

from the private providers of languages education. Political neutrality refers to the provision

4 Mercurio and Scarino, 2005. 5 Meyer 1980, p. 48 6 Interview with Burnie Rymer, 2013. 7 Education Department, 14 April 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 - 1973. Interview with “Milan”, 2013, Interview with “Redmond”, 2013. 8 Interview with “Milan”, 2013, Interview with “Redmond”, 2013.


206

of a language curriculum that is free of religious or political overtones and that is therefore

accessible to all students. As Meyer’s theory suggests, the school’s ability to maintain its

legitimacy and secure its long-term survival rested on its ability to deliver a curriculum that

was considered appropriate by all constituents.9 For an Education Department organisation,

being seen to support a curriculum that was not politically neutral posed a significant risk and

could destabilise the school’s ongoing survival.

Where topics of instruction are concerned, Meyer explains that school subjects should reflect

the accepted standards and they should be understood by all constituents to be appropriate. In

this context, all constituents meant the mainstream language teaching establishment, the

Education Department, academics, and in particular the ones based in university language

departments, and the Victorian community at large. Deviating from that which is considered

acceptable increases the risk of losing credibility by raising doubt and uncertainty about the

legitimacy of the organisation.10 Reid adds that new subjects can have difficulty in becoming

accepted: “Since they have not been previously taught, no one knows what a proper example

of topic or teaching would look like. Yet the subject has to be totally acceptable or not

accepted at all.”11 These ideas are another suitable lens for interpreting the way that first the

SSML and then the VSL worked with subject communities to ensure that the syllabus for

new language subjects met the standards set by the Education Department. In particular, it

appears that setting aside political concerns and agendas was an integral part of this process.

It is also appropriate to consider the ideas developed by Mercurio and Scarino, who explain

that when subject communities advocate for particular heritage language subjects, they bring

their own particular knowledge and understandings about their languages as school subjects:

For heritage languages, these subject communities take on an added meaning. Not only are they advocates of the teaching of a subject, but they are also advocates for teaching the language of their origin and community of speakers. They bring particular readings of what should be taught and how it should be taught. They understand that maintenance of their language as a school subject requires adapting to (and fitting in with) administrative and curriculum structures. They understand the political nature of their social project. They appreciate the critical role that the school plays in maintaining and strengthening

9 Meyer 1980, p. 48. 10 Ibid. 11 Reid 2012, p. 72, emphasis in original.


207

their language within their families and within the Australian community.12

As this section will highlight, this process was not always smooth and it often involved a lot

of negotiation due to the existence of competing agendas. The section that follows will delve

into some instances of the political challenges that arose at the school. These stories illustrate

some of the many difficult situations in which the VSL found itself over the decades. Some

may argue that they would be better left in the past, or that many of these problems have

since been resolved and therefore may be considered irrelevant to the present. But their

inclusion is important because they demonstrate a number of key points about the process of

legitimisation for the heritage language subjects in Victoria and the role of the VSL.

7.1.2 Competing political interests and the risks to legitimacy

Political tensions first became apparent at the SSML in the early 1970s. Prior to this time, if

there were any political issues present, they were less evident in the archived documents that

were analysed for this thesis. As explained earlier, the 1970s was a period of rapid change at

the school, when requests for new languages were being presented on a frequent basis,

usually directly from members of migrant communities. The first language to present

particular challenges in this respect was Hungarian, because it was affected by competing

political interests within its subject community. The case of Hungarian is important because it

was due to this episode that the Education Department set out new policies for the school,

and these can be interpreted as important steps towards maintaining its claims for legitimacy

and credibility as a government school organisation.

As outlined in Chapter 5, a request was made for the introduction of Hungarian towards the

end of 1971, after discussions with the Hungarian Consul-General. The Secretary of the

Education Department responded by outlining the conditions that needed to be met before

Hungarian could be established; namely that student demand must be evident and that

suitable teaching staff must be available.13 Early in 1972, the Hungarian Consul-General,

together with Mr Arthur Moy, the then Assistant Director, visited the University High School

12 Mercurio and Scarino 2005, p. 152. 13 F Szentessy, 26 December 1971, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971, Secretary of the Education Department, 7 January 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 – 1971.


208

centre on a Saturday morning to make a presentation of reference books.14 However, the

Education Department came under fire for the way in which the language was established.

The Chief Secretary of the Council of Hungarian Associations in Victoria wrote to the

Minister for Education and expressed his surprise to learn of the “sudden and unofficial”

approach that had been taken to introduce Hungarian into the SSML. He commended the

Education Department for introducing the language, but cautioned its involvement with the

Hungarian Consul-General: “May we be at liberty to point out to you that, had we wished for

any contact – “cultural” or otherwise, with the present Hungarian Government, we would not

have migrated and settled in this country.”15

The President of the Council later wrote to the Acting Premier of Victoria, the Hon. Rupert

Hamer and claimed that the individual who had initiated the classes was a communist

sympathiser and that the textbooks that he had helped procure through the Hungarian

government contained “Communist propaganda of the crudest kind”. He appealed for

Hamer’s intervention “to ensure that the proposed teaching of Hungarian in Victoria is not

turned into a Communist propaganda exercise.”16 To help find a resolution, a meeting with

relevant stakeholders was held at University High School where the possibility of setting up a

Standing Committee was discussed.17 Despite this, the Education Minister made the decision

to “take the matter in abeyance for the time being”, due to the considerable divergence of

opinion among the interested parties.18

It was not until 1974 when Moy finally decided that Hungarian would be introduced at the

SSML. In his notes, he made several dot points for firm guidelines set down by the

department:

Hungarian would be introduced in 1974 provided that this does not result in problems inimical to the interests of the SSML… Hungarian will be offered for the benefit of the community at large not merely as a service to the Hungarian community… There must be no attempt to introduce ‘background studies” of a political nature.19

14 B Rymer, 16 February 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 15 J Juhasz, 25 February 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 16 A Endrey, 4 August 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 17 Education Department, 27 May 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 18 L Thompson, 14 September 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 - 1973. 19 A Moy, 9 May 1973, VSL archives.


209

As suggested in Chapter 6, Moy presumably set down the regulations for the establishment of

new languages at the SSML as a result of the difficulties involved in the introduction of

Hungarian.20

Seen through the lens of Meyer’s theory, the initial attempts to establish the Hungarian

language were considered a risk to the legitimacy of not only the school itself, but also to the

Education Department under which it closely sheltered. As Meyer explains, it is critical that

school subjects reflect the accepted standards and they should be understood by all

constituents to be appropriate. The motivations of certain individuals and the proposed

teaching materials had been questioned, and Moy recognised that the initial request for

Hungarian subject represented a significant risk. It represented a deviation from that which

was considered acceptable. By insisting that Hungarian conform to Departmental regulations,

Moy prevented the potential loss of credibility that could have come and the uncertainty that

could have been raised about the legitimacy of the organisation.21

As mentioned in Chapter 6, applications to establish classes in the Polish language also went

through a protracted process, due to concerns about the appropriateness of its proposed

syllabus. The Education Department made the decision to reject an application to introduce

the Polish language in 1973, on the grounds that its syllabus was not adequately prepared.

Representatives of the Polish community appealed and expressed their “dissatisfaction and

opposition”, because they had “fulfilled all requirements as requested”. 22 They were asked to

provide a “satisfactory” syllabus so that it could be reconsidered for 1973.23 In internal

documents, Rymer noted that the Polish syllabus was heavily focused on political and

historical content, rather than simply its linguistic elements. He noted that it was “totally

unacceptable” and “could not be classed as adequate in content or structure by any

criterion.”24

Rymer recalls that these political debates added another layer of complexity to his job, but it

was his position, and the position of the Department, to work together to remain politically

neutral:

20 Education Department, 14 April 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 21 Meyer 1980, p. 48 22 M Bialowieyski, 12 October 1972 and 18 October 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 23 L Thompson, 27 October 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 - 1973. 24 B Rymer, 10 April 1972, VSL archives.


210

There was a political dimension with regard to some countries where there had been a Communist government and people from both sides of politics had come to Australia. There was pressure for a particular teacher to be hired over the other, and there was a certain degree of friction. And [there was] pressure on me, so much so, that it finished up in the office of the Assistant Director of Education at one stage. It started to be a shouting match - (not by the Director). It was quite rugged, and I would be offered certain inducements. And I said, “I'm sorry, I can't take that.” The Education Department were not interested in getting bogged down in politics.25

The events surrounding Hungarian and Polish are significant because they are both examples

of real life political scenarios that were expressed through the medium of the SSML. For the

ongoing legitimacy of the SSML and of the Education Department, it was essential that

language programs were free from political agendas and remained completely neutral.

However, these events demonstrate that for the representatives of these subject communities,

conforming to the many requirements of the Education Department and the SSML could be

problematic, and for some, it took several attempts. It is clear that the SSML’s administrators

and senior Education Department staff worked closely with the subject communities to find a

way for the curriculum of these subjects to conform to the politically neutral requirements in

order to become accepted.

In the case of these subject communities, developing an understanding of the political nature

of their social project, in effect developing an understanding of the need to de-politicise the

curriculum, was a process that took time and was aided by support from the SSML and from

the Education Department. It was through this process that an understanding could be

developed and that the proposed syllabi could be moulded to the standard forms expected of

languages. As Mercurio and Scarino add, “Essentially the process required conforming with

administrative, curriculum and community structures and fitting the mould of evolving

language policies and generic frameworks.”26

As the authors explain, heritage languages went through a process of grafting on to official

curriculum structures. They grafted themselves onto the classical, humanist curriculum and

they gained a significant degree of legitimacy from being aligned with other ‘languages’ that

25 Interview with Burnie Rymer, 2013. 26 Mercurio and Scarino 2005, p. 145.


211

had already been accepted as subjects that were appropriate for training of the mind. 27 By

aligning themselves to the established set of expectations associated with languages, heritage

languages had to abandon political, historical or background elements in their curriculum.

Like Latin, French and German, they were expected to focus solely on linguistic elements. As

Moy articulated, these subjects could not be established just for particular cliques or enclaves

within language communities; they had to cater to all Victorian students.28 Not catering to the

broader Victorian community would pose a significant risk to the school’s claims for

legitimacy.29

The events outlined above are relevant because they illustrate a number of other important

points about the way that heritage languages gained legitimacy in the context of the VSL.

Firstly, and most obviously, these stories highlight the enormous significance of languages

education and what is taught and how it is taught. They demonstrate the extent to which

languages matter to people. They show the extent to which people and communities have

been passionate about the maintenance and the teaching of their languages over the years.

In addition, it is clear that subject communities feel so strongly about the teaching of their

languages that they feel compelled to try to maintain a degree of control over them. They

want to intervene into matters such as who teaches their language, how the language is being

taught as well as the curriculum content. However, by being a part of the SSML or the VSL,

and gaining the legitimacy that came with being a part of a government school, members of

these language communities had to relinquish the control of their languages. Some were

reluctant to do this and still made attempts to exert control over the administration of their

language programs. In a sense, these stories can be understood as a series of bumps along the

long road in the process of mainstreaming and of standardisation of languages.

7.1.3 The risks of staffing dilemmas

Even though many subject communities managed to conform to the requirements and

regulations of the Education Department in order to have their languages established at the

school, other issues caused problems for the school’s administrators, and these too posed

27 Ibid, p. 149. 28 A Moy, 9 May 1973, VSL archives. 29 Meyer 1980, p. 48.


212

risks to the stability of the school’s ongoing legitimacy. As Meyer explains, schools must be

able to demonstrate that they are able to link their organisation to wider institutional systems

in many areas, including their staff of suitably qualified teachers. If these links cannot be

maintained, the school risks its status as a legitimate organisation.30

For the VSL, there were times when maintaining a neutral policy in staffing could be difficult.

But it was critical for the school to conform to the accepted and appropriate policy for

staffing of the Education Department. Freeman recalls that during the early 1990s, there were

many competing political agendas that continued to be played out through the medium of the

VSL:

Always within every community there were divisions… There were all these little communities, tribal, very political communities within Melbourne… Whether it was a Christian being appointed or a Muslim being appointed, you wouldn't know just from looking at their CV. So you were always juggling the politics of the community as well as the job of teaching the language… [It was] the internal community politics that would run you into trouble. And that was where the Area Managers could do a lot of ferreting around.31

Twenty years later, the school continues to face challenges to its staffing policy. As one

centre Supervisor explains, some groups of parents still bring certain expectations about

teachers:

Some of the Arabic parents who come to enrol the kids, they ask, “What sort of background is the teacher?” So, if you tell them “Oh, Egyptian or Iraqi”, they tend to be put back a little bit. So you have to tread carefully, also you have to make sure that teachers who teach that language stick to the standard language; avoid jargon, avoid slang, and all those things. Plus of course stick to the charter of the VSL which is both political and religious neutral.32

These events suggest that there are still pressures that come from many sides for languages

to be taught in a certain way, or by a certain type of teacher. By giving the VSL the

responsibility of teaching the language however, the reality is that subject communities

relinquish the control of their language programs. The other important element is that the

30 Ibid. 31 Interview with Gil Freeman, 2013. 32 Interview with “Redmond”, 2013.


213

VSL’s continuing stability and long-term credibility as a legitimate organisation depends on

its ability to maintain an accepted and appropriate policy for staffing.33

7.1.4 The risks of a state government agenda

The 1990s brought another issue that was unlike any other that the school had encountered

before. The Greek – Macedonian conflict of the 1990s was not only driven by pressure from

the ethnic community but also from the Victorian state government itself. This event was

unique in that it was the Victorian government that was embroiled in a heated political

debate about the naming of the Macedonian language and it applied pressure on the school

to abandon its neutral stance. Yet the school resisted this pressure. As shown below, not

doing so would present a significant risk to the school’s ongoing claims for legitimacy, for a

range of reasons.

For many years, the VSL had been delivering language programs in Macedonian, which is to

be distinguished from Greek. But in 1993, sections of the Greek community made the claim

that the name Macedonia corresponded to the northernmost province of Greece.34 On 21

July 1994, Hon Jeff Kennett, the Premier of Victoria, issued an official directive for

government departments to cease using the name Macedonian and to start referring to the

language as Slav Macedonian.35 Freeman recalls that this issue was one of the most difficult

that he faced as Principal: “The one period when I felt very pressured was under the whole

question of the Greek versus Macedonian language. And I was instructed, it was given, for

me to understand that we shouldn't have Macedonian.”36 Kleinhenz remembers that the

directive was clearly politically motivated: “The Greeks quite clearly had the absolute full

support of the Kennett Liberal government, to the extent that we were directed to have on all

of our [documents] Slav Macedonian. Macedonian was Slav Macedonian and it had to be

distinguished from Greek.”37 Indeed, Kennett had sided with the Greek community and

33 Meyer 1980, p. 48. 34 C Rubenstein, ‘Kennett’s multicultural Victoria’ in B Costar and N Economou (eds), The Kennett Revolution: Victorian Politics in the 1990s, UNSW Press, Sydney, 1999, pp. 250-260, p. 256. 35 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, ‘Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) No: H97/189, Between: Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee (Inc), and State of Victoria’, 2000. Retrieved 8 January 2015, http://macedonianhr.org.au/images/stories/pdf/hreoc.pdf. 36 Interview with Gil Freeman, 2013. 37 Interview with Elizabeth Kleinhenz, 2013.


214

defended its right to express its opinions on the issue. An eventual consequence for Kennett

was that it drove the Macedonian community away from the Liberals and towards Labor.38

For the school, delivering on the government’s directive on the naming of the Macedonian

language posed enormous practical difficulties. “We were a government school and we had

to follow government policy, but it was incredibly difficult for us to do that. I think most of

us felt that it was unfair.”39 Yet as Rymer and Abiuso had done in previous years, Freeman

resisted pressure and instead continued to maintain a politically neutral stance: his view was

that Macedonian was a separate language and it therefore stood above politics.

The school used the name Macedonian wherever it could, but refrained from using it on

official school documentation. Freeman recalls that in upholding the school’s commitment

to the Macedonian community, he was “basically skating on the edge a bit.” He remembers

hiding the curriculum documents for Macedonian, to avoid a confrontation with the

Minister:

We had about 30 languages being launched at University High School one day, and the Deputy and the Minister would come out and launch them. I was in that terrible position of wanting to support the Macedonians, and so I basically got the Macedonian curriculum and covered it with a plain cover. So when the Minister looked at it all, he said, “Yeah, that's all right.” Because they were all bundled up he went away, and underneath the cover there was “Macedonian”, in Macedonian script.40

The tension that existed between the Education Department and the school’s administrators

did not seem to filter down to the classroom. As Kleinhenz recalls, the two groups of

students and teachers interacted harmoniously at the school: “When I went to Thomastown I

had Greeks and Macedonians. And it was lovely. They got on very well and I thought that

was great. And that was something I felt that it was sort of the best of the school, that it was

bringing people together in that way.”41

Eventually, it was determined that the Victorian government’s directive was implicitly racist.

In addition, it was not in step with the Australian national foreign policy towards Macedonia.

38 Rubenstein 1999, p. 256. 39 Interview with Elizabeth Kleinhenz, 2013. 40 Interview with Gil Freeman, 2013. 41 Interview with Elizabeth Kleinhenz, 2013.


215

In 1995, representatives of the Macedonian community and the Macedonian Teachers’

Association lodged a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

under the Racial Discrimination Act. This prompted a long and protracted process and the

issue was not finally resolved until 2000, when it was finally determined that the Victorian

government’s directive had been unlawful. Following this decision, all Victorian

government departments declared the language to be known as Macedonian.42

Gearon believes that the way that the VSL responded to the Macedonian Slavonic issue

highlighted the extent to which the school was committed to the needs of the community:

I think when they went out on a limb, they really responded to community concerns and recognised that they were not going to have students if the parents were off side and if the government was putting the parents off-side and therefore the parents wouldn’t send the students. It would mean the demise of the VSL, or they would have to reduce their offerings and I think it indicated that the VSL was employing people who were much more attuned to the needs and interests and desires of the community than the government was.43

Her comment reveals an important point. It demonstrates that for the VSL, it was important

to supporting the wishes and the needs of the local communities because the future of the

VSL depended on its ability to continue securing ongoing student enrolments. For the VSL, it

had to provide programs that were considered acceptable and appropriate by a broad range of

external environmental institutions, beyond one isolated directive of the Kennett government.

As a legitimated organisation, its ongoing credibility rested on its ability to match its

programs with the broader wishes and needs of other important constituents, and this

included the Victorian Macedonian community.

In addition, it is important to consider the school’s position at that time. It can be speculated

that Freeman was reluctant to stand up to the Department and openly disagree with their

directive because of the tenuous position of the VSL during the early 1990s. The school was

under review yet again, it had undergone budget cuts, and its senior positions were on hold.

Given this delicate situation, it can be speculated that Freeman was reluctant to antagonise

the Department by openly challenging its directive. Yet it was his decision to support

42 Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee, ‘The Macedonian (SLAVONIC) Language Case’, 2014. Retrieved 8 January 2015, http://macedonianhr.org.au/contents/106 43 Interview with Margaret Gearon, 2013.


216

Macedonian in a furtive manner rather than risk jeopardising the school’s positive

relationship with the Education Department at a time when it was itself in a tenuous position.

It was due to the experience of tackling these difficult issues and tensions that the school’s

politically neutral policies were established and developed. This happened as a result of the

issues involved in the introduction of Hungarian in the 1970s, when the Education

Department established a list of regulations. Over the years, these policies and regulations

were tested, reviewed and refined. By 1994, when the directive about Macedonian Slavonic

was given, the school was so accustomed to maintaining a politically impartial position that

Freeman was able to resist government pressure to some extent. In this respect, the VSL was

in step with the wishes of the community and this was critical for the school’s ongoing

legitimacy.

7.1.5 The VSL as a flexibility mechanism

These episodes also reveal important insights into the way that the school has been used by

the government in relation to political conflicts that have erupted among migrant

communities. Lo Bianco suggests that the school has acted as a sort of flexibility mechanism.

It has been used as a convenient solution for governments that wished to be seen as

responsive to community needs:

When governments have got pressure from communities, the VSL has allowed them to be seen to be responding to community politics or community pressure or ethnic politics, without doing it in mainstream schools. They have treated it as a kind of a flexibility mechanism for buying off or taking the sting out of a political issue that was confronting them. And I think that that’s very clear with Macedonian and probably with the others. So it’s one of those ways of allowing the government to placate certain pressure without antagonising a foreign government.44

In a practical sense, it can also be speculated that this kind of flexibility mechanism was seen

as attractive for the Victorian government because it cost very little to run. Because the

school utilised the classrooms of mainstream schools, there were very low overhead costs

associated with operating the school. It was a ready-made flexibility mechanism that could be

easily adapted to respond to community pressure or ethnic politics. The fact that the school 44 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013.


217

can be considered a convenient pressure valve to ease political interests is a unique element

that strengthens its ongoing claims for legitimacy.

Section 2: Issues in gaining and maintaining legitimacy for a state specialist language school

7.2.1 The legitimated VSL shapes its relational networks

This section steps back from language specific matters and looks at issues associated with

legitimacy for the VSL on an organisational level. It addresses the VSL’s relationships with

other sectors of the education system. In particular, it deals with the changing dynamics of

the school’s relationship with other sectors after it started to gain legitimacy. It also discusses

the impact that the school has had on other parts of the education system as a result of its

increasing authority. In order to explain these issues, the theories of Meyer and Rowan will

again be utilised. As noted at the end of Chapter 6, Meyer and Rowan explain that it is

possible for organisations to play an active role in shaping their institutional contexts. At the

end of that chapter, it was speculated that the institutional contexts surrounding the VSL have

changed in several ways as a result of the school’s presence.

As Meyer and Rowan explain, powerful organisations force their immediate relational

networks to adapt to their structures and relations.45 “For instance, automobile producers help

create demands for particular kinds of roads, transportation systems, and fuels that make

automobiles virtual necessities; competitive forms of transportation have to adapt to the

existing relational context.” 46 Importantly, this network includes an organisation’s

competitors. Powerful and legitimate organisations have great influence over the broad

context in which they operate, including their competitors: “powerful organizations attempt

to build their goals and procedures directly into society as institutional rules… Rivals must

then compete in both social networks or markets and in contexts of institutional rules which

are defined by extant organizations.” 47 Seen through the lens of Meyer and Rowan’s theory,

it can be speculated that as the VSL increased its claims for legitimacy, and became more

powerful, it forced the other sectors in the language education area to adapt to its existence.

45 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 348. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid.


218

In turn, this forced the dynamics in the VSL’s relationships with other language providers to

shift. This section will present several examples of the VSL forcing its immediate relational

network to adapt to its structures and relations as a result of its legitimisation.

7.2.2 Competitive relations between the VSL and mainstream schools

The VSL is known today as a “complementary” provider, and this very name suggests that its

role is to enhance, correspond to and integrate with the mainstream system. Today, it is

accepted that language programs in Victoria are delivered by a variety of education systems,

not just one. Former Education Department staff Anne Eckstein, who was Head of the

Languages Unit from 1994 – 2002, explains: “They’re part of a big picture plan where

everybody has a part to play, and one part isn't necessarily better than another.”48 Andrew

Ferguson, Former President of the Modern Language Teachers Association of Victoria,

describes it in a similar way: “We’re now in a landscape where complementary providers -

community language schools and the VSL and mainstream schools are now seen all as part of

a bigger picture which offers flexibility of delivery.”49 Yet people did not always see

language provision as something to be shared among sectors in this way.

In the first few decades of the Saturday classes, it was clear where mainstream language

provision ended and where the VSL’s role began. The very existence of the VSL, right from

its origins, was due to the fact that the language curriculum in the mainstream school system

was lacking in diversity and there was unmet student demand for a wider variety of languages.

The line was clearly drawn between different languages, as there were no state schools

equipped to offer Japanese, Italian, Dutch, Russian or Indonesian. The school did not appear

to encroach on other providers and the other providers did not seem to take exception to it.

This remained the status quo for many decades.

Yet from the time of the SSML, the school began to have a much bigger impact on its

relational networks. It was in this era that the school came under strong criticism for its so-

called encroachment on the mainstream school system. It was criticised when the Education

Department finally agreed to the introduction of French and German into the SSML.50 French

48 Interview with Anne Eckstein, 2013. 49 Interview with Andrew Ferguson, 2013. 50 Interview with undisclosed participant.


219

and German had been the pillars of the language curriculum of mainstream schools. Until that

time, it had not been the Education Department’s policy to support the establishment of

languages at the SSML that were taught in the mainstream school curriculum.51

In response to these developments, language teachers in mainstream Education Department

schools made claims against the SSML. Some of them resented the growth of the new

languages that were being fostered by the SSML and they saw the school as a threat to the

development of the traditional language curriculum in mainstream schools. They were keen

to maintain the status quo, which was the domination of German and French. To add to their

anxieties, there had been a widespread loss of student interest in these traditional languages

around this time and there was a drop in student enrolment numbers at matriculation level in

mainstream schools.52 Some reportedly felt suspicious of the SSML because they saw the

government’s financial support of the SSML as a threat to the funding of their own programs.

The teachers union became involved.53

With its encroachment into the mainstream, the SSML increasingly came to be seen as a

threat to others. Seen through the lens of Meyer and Rowan’s theory, these events can be

understood as the school starting to have an impact on its immediate relational network. It

can also be seen as a sign that the school was beginning to force its immediate relational

network to adapt to its structures and relations.54

Lo Bianco regards these tensions as significant because they demonstrate that the school was

beginning to make its presence felt as it moved towards the mainstream:

What it shows is the beginning of a mainstreaming move. Because as long as it was just called “classes”, it seemed to be marginal. And it was teaching languages that weren’t in the mainstream, so mainstream teachers they couldn’t care less about it, really. It wasn’t impacting on schools in any way and therefore, teachers weren’t aware of it... So, if that criticism is raised, it is… because it’s starting to impinge in some way on the mainstream. And I think that that’s a sign of movement and change and a good thing. It’s two systems rubbing up against each other and then they have to deal with each other.55

51 R Prowse, 26 March 1974, VSL archives. 52 Ozolins 1993, p. 132. 53 Interview with undisclosed participant. 54 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 348. 55 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013.


220

The Education Department responded to the impact that the SSML was having on its

relational networks. In order to prevent students from enrolling at the SSML in language

programs that were also being offered at mainstream schools, the Education Department

initiated student eligibility requirements. It established a condition that enrolling students

needed to bring a letter from their Headmaster stating that the same language was not already

available at their particular day school. Also, the MLTAV articulated its stance on the matter,

and made it clear that language provision in the mainstream system was still the top priority.

It advocated for a balance between educational providers, and warned against complementary

providers taking up the slack of the work expected to be undertaken in mainstream school

settings: “Where ethnic language schools and other educational institutions offer languages,

this should not preclude the teaching of languages in the mainstream curriculum of nearby

post-primary schools.”56

While these events took place during the 1970s, some argue that the divisions along language

lines can still be seen today. As Eckstein asks: “Should the VSL be teaching the big

languages… French, German, Italian, Japanese and Indonesian? Or is there enough of that in

mainstream schools?”57 She also asks whether other arguments along geographical lines can

be made as well: “Should they [the VSL], in Box Hill, be running Chinese programs?58 I

don't know. I think mainstream schools should be running Chinese programs in Box Hill.

Should the VSL be running Chinese somewhere? Absolutely.”59 It can be assumed that this

argument contends that the VSL should not be encroaching on the languages offered in the

mainstream school system. Yet the fact that the VSL is offering its programs in well-

established languages with large enrolments should not be seen as a threat to the other sectors.

It should instead be viewed as an acknowledgement of the many real life difficulties and

challenges that mainstream schools experience in offering quality language programs, which

the Victorian government clearly articulated in its latest plan for languages education.60

56 MLTAV, ‘M.L.T.A.V. policy on the teaching of languages other than English, 1983’, 1983, VSL archives. 57 Interview with Anne Eckstein, 2013. 58 Box Hill is a Melbourne suburb that has a large Chinese community. 59 Interview with Anne Eckstein, 2013. 60 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2013, p. 7-8.


221

7.2.3 Does the VSL let mainstream schools “off the hook”?

Theoretically, the role of a complementary provider is to enhance the mainstream, but there is

a view that strong complementary providers can in fact weaken the mainstream. Despite the

MLTAV’s warning about complementary providers taking up the slack of the work expected

to be undertaken in mainstream school settings, some believe that this is what happened.

Eckstein offers a warning that they should not be allowed to outgrow their role: “The

argument has always been, the more of those after-hours kind of stuff you have [VSL and

ethnic schools], the more it lets mainstream schools off the hook.”61 Gearon agrees that

mainstream schools should not use the existence of the VSL as a way to avoid language

teaching:

[It’s important to make] mainstream school principals take the responsibility that the government has told them they should have: that a language is compulsory from Prep to Year 10, for every student. And I think that possibly one of the dangers of the VSL is that school principals could think, “If they’re offering a program at Years 7, 8, 9, and 10, we can just shunt off our students to them.”62

Hannan believes that the VSL has in fact let the mainstream system off the hook: “I think

they’re off the hook already (laughs) and they don't want to get back on it.”63 Forster also

made this point. She believed that the SSML had been an “easy solution for schools to ensure

that students received language tuition but not at the expense of the existing day school

curriculum.”64 Hannan also pointed out the immense difficulties that mainstream schools

faced in providing quality language programs:

There are a lot of schools that would rather not know about it [a language program]. It’s very hard to get the teachers. Even getting an Italian teacher is not easy… [Schools] are not in fact adequately organised to do something that requires a fairly high level of cooperation and planning. These things are very hard to achieve and all the while, fortunately the VSL is sitting there taking the slack which is good.65

He also remembers that the VSL provided principals of mainstream schools with a

convenient way to solve problems at the school level. “It was terribly handy to be able to

61 Ibid. 62 Interview with Margaret Gearon, 2013. 63 Interview with Bill and Lorna Hannan, 2013. 64 Forster 1992, p. 275. 65 Ibid.


222

have kids go to it [the VSL] instead of having them demanding something of the school.”66

These comments suggest that mainstream schools continue to face difficulties in providing

high quality language programs.

The Victorian government’s most recent plan for languages education acknowledges that a

revival of languages education in Victoria is warranted. To achieve these aims, it devised

three strategies to improve the level of demand for language learning, to improve access to

programs and to improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools. It also articulates

ambitious goals for language learning in Victorian schools.67 While it is hoped that this plan

does enable mainstream schools to offer higher quality programs, this document also

articulates flexibility of delivery as one of its guiding principles. This can be understood as an

acknowledgement that one sector can no longer realistically be expected to deliver high

quality programs in such a diverse curriculum area on its own.

7.2.4 Is complementary language provision a “second best” option?

Even though the VSL had achieved a higher status as a credible school, there were

interviewees who voiced concerns about the SSML’s reliance on inadequately qualified

teaching staff, and suggested that this difference in teacher quality meant that the VSL

programs were not as good as those found in mainstream schools. 68 One other interviewee

cited instances where instructors in some heavily populated languages would bring cousins or

relatives along with them on Saturday mornings, in the hope that centre supervisors would

also hire these relatives as instructors at the SSML.69 Indeed, as explained by Rymer and

Abiuso, the reality was that there were underqualified teachers in many languages at the

school, due to the immense practical difficulties in finding qualified teachers. This problem

was compounded by the fact that many languages were not taught at university level in

Victoria.

Panousieris, who had worked as a staff member at the SSML, asserted that this difference in

teacher qualifications set the complementary providers apart from the language provision that

66 Ibid. 67 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2013, p. 3. 68 Interview with George Panousieris, 2013. 69 Interview with “Redmond”, 2013.


223

was offered in regular schools. As he puts it, “basically you had a second class of language

teachers teaching on a Saturday. The vast bulk might have overseas qualifications, or

professional qualifications”.70 He believes that this marginalised the VSL and the ethnic

schools. “It was a two tiered system. It [the SSML] was not a mainstream model. It was very

much outside of the mainstream. And that is where it sat.”71 In this respect, the VSL would

not be able to fully realise its potential as a legitimate provider until the issue of teacher

qualifications was addressed.

Ferguson agrees that in the past, there was a view that the VSL was a “second best” option: “I

think the traditional image is that the VSL is a bit ‘off to the side’. It's something you did as a

lesser program, because you had to, because that’s the only way you could get your

language.”72 He also argues that the timetable used by complementary providers is not ideal.

He believes that three hours in one concentrated stretch is not good methodology for

language delivery:

It's not a good model. Let's face it, we know that. Three hours is really too long in one block, especially with younger kids. No matter how much we vary the activities, they’re going to be exhausted by the end of it. We need regular exposure, frequency of exposure too. And that's what you can't do under that model.73

However, it is clear that recent thinking has shifted significantly from the view of the past:

The vision document from the Victorian government, A Vision for Languages Education strongly emphasises flexibility of delivery. And so [the] community language school experience is as valid as doing a language at the VSL, whether you go to classes or whether you do it via Distance Ed. These will be seen as equal to being in a face-to-face class, and that's strengthening the VSL's position.74

Once again it can be surmised that in the present day, it has now been accepted that flexibility

of delivery is the reality for languages education in this state. The Victorian government

explains that in 2013, there were more than 52,000 Victorian students enrolled in language

programs one of the state’s complementary providers, including both the VSL and

70 Interview with George Panousieris, 2013. 71 Ibid. 72 Interview with Andrew Ferguson, 2013. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid.


224

community languages schools. Its plans for language education in Victoria clearly state that

these flexible delivery options are something to be supported and funded. 75

7.2.5 The VSL as supporter of the mainstream sector

As a result of its recognised position as an authority in the field of language education, key

representatives of the Education Department now assert that the VSL is a resource that can be

used to assist mainstream schools.76 In special cases, the school has offered short-term

support to other schools requiring help in providing language programs. As one VSL staff

member explains,

A classic example is what we did with the John Monash School which was a new special select entry school. They wanted to start [teaching languages] but as a start-up school, they just wanted to concentrate on their core which was a science curriculum, and they asked us to provide the languages. For the main languages we sent staff to teach insertion classes. We only did that for two years because by then the school was established and had built up its curriculum. It then employed its own language teachers. But that’s the sort of role that the VSL needs to have. We’re a complementary provider. We can assist schools.77

There have been other cases where regional schools have needed support, due to difficulties

in finding teaching staff, and in those cases, the VSL has also been able to assist.

Because people have seen we can offer flexible delivery, they’ve come to us and said, “We’re struggling to provide EAL support to small numbers of kids in regional schools. It’s okay in the western suburbs or in Dandenong, you’ve got language centres, you’ve got schools with EAL teachers. But what happens to the ten Somali kids in Colac, etc? They can work a combination of Distance Ed. and video conferencing and regional visits, all elements that we have experience in. So this is where the whole idea of critical mass and knowledge can be used for the betterment of all schools.78

Again it appears that this approach is in keeping with the Victorian government’s latest plan

for languages education, which articulates flexibility of delivery, including online learning, as

one of its key principles.79

75 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2013, p. 7. 76 D. Howes, speech at VSL VCE Top Scorer Awards, 3 March 2014. 77 Interview with “Milan”, 2013. 78 Ibid. 79 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2013 p. 3.


225

7.2.6 Competitive relations between the VSL and community language schools

As indicated above, the Community Language Schools (also known as ethnic schools) have

also played an important part in the overall provision of languages education in Victoria.

However, because they also operate outside school hours, usually on a Saturday morning,

and also specialise in community languages, these schools have represented a direct form of

competition for the VSL. There have been many competitive dynamics between the VSL

and the community language schools and there are many tensions that continue to simmer

today.

Lo Bianco explains that the advent of ethnic schools is a natural progression in the

settlement process for new communities:

For each immigrant group, that’s part of the process of settling in, there will be community-run schools and they will be often set up by entrepreneurial individuals in those communities and some of them will last and some of them won’t last. Sometimes they’re money-making things; sometimes they’re bad; sometimes they’re not bad, but that’s the way provision works. People see a need. There’s a market. They provide for it.80

Abiuso indicated that the VSL’s relationship with the ethnic schools has been varied and

complex, and at times, fiercely competitive. He explains that tensions about funding lead to

a “great animosity” between the SSML and many of the leaders of the ethnic communities:

“The ethnic communities claimed the role of teaching their languages outside of the school

system, and viewed the Saturday School as nothing more than a rival in the sharing of

Commonwealth and State funds provided for community languages education.”81

This argument dates back to the issue of state aid for mainstream schools, which gathered

momentum after 1981. From that time on, federal funding for non-government schools was

legitimised. This change provided the non-government school sector with increased power

and growth.82 Because of this, it is common for people to now assert that all sectors should be

supported, not just the VSL. Eckstein believes that there is nothing unusual about the fact that

80 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013. 81 Abiuso, ‘Application for the position of Principal at the Victorian School of Languages’. 82 Proctor and Campbell 2014, p. 227 -228.


226

both independent ethnic schools and the VSL receive financial support from the state

government. “Just like we have Catholic and Independent schools in the day sector, we have

after hours Ethnic Schools and we have the VSL.”83

Fierce competition for precious funding among complementary providers began in 1980,

when the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA) released the Review of

Multicultural and Migrant Education, which made significant recommendations about ethnic

schools. It supported the formal relationships between ethnic schools and mainstream schools,

in the form of insertion classes, by providing annual federal funding to ethnic schools of $30

for each student. 84 Funding gradually increased but in 2010 and 2011, the Victorian

government significantly increased its funding and organisational support for community

language schools.85 By 2014, the per capita funding for each student enrolled at an accredited

community language school had reached $140.86

As indicated in Chapter 6, funding for the VSL was restricted for the first time in the early

1990s, during the recession. At that time, Freeman was required to make significant cuts to

the school’s expenditure. Current VSL administrators recall that up until 2005, the school had

had an ad hoc arrangement with the Education Department where it would make submissions

for funding increases to accommodate growing student demand for its programs. Submissions

would be based on data that showed demand in particular suburbs and in particular language

programs. These submissions were assessed annually. However, since 2005, no increase in

funding has been allocated to the school, and for the past ten years it has had to cater to

growing demand for its programs by utilising its own, locally derived funds. It was only

because the VSL school council approved for local funds to be used that the school’s new

programs in Karen and Chin (Hakha) could be developed.87

In this respect there is a clear disconnect between the school’s funding model and its mission

to provide innovation and foresight in languages delivery in Victoria. Evidence gathered from

83 Interview with Anne Eckstein, 2013. 84 Ozolins 1993, p. 175. 85 M Peucker and S Akbarzadeh, ‘Managing Religious Diversity and Promoting Active Citizenship: Muslims in Australia, Britain and Germany’, in F Mansouri and E Boulou, Global perspectives on the politics of multiculturalism in the 21st century: a case study analysis, Routledge, London, 2014, pp. 141-160, p. 146. 86 Department of Education and Training, ‘Grants. DEECD Community Languages Schools - Per capita grants’, 2015. Retrieved 22 January 2015, http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/languages/pages/clsschools.aspx 87 Interview with “Edward”, 2013.


227

interviews with senior VSL managers suggests that instability in financial support from the

Victorian government is one of the anxieties that is felt the most acutely in the current VSL

context. Some revealed that they believe it poses a significant threat to the future of the

school. Without a strong funding model, the continuing legitimacy of the school could be in

jeopardy. 88

7.2.7 The VSL’s relationship with community language schools

At first glance, there might appear to be many similarities between the VSL and the

community language schools because they also operate outside school hours, usually on a

Saturday morning, and they also specialise in community languages. Some point out that in

the past, there was an inevitable degree of overlap:

There was “crappy” teaching in Ethnic Schools. There were classes that were way too big, there were people who were either qualified overseas with very different expectations, or good native speakers with very good hearts and souls, but not a lot of teacher training, who taught the way they had been taught 40 years before. And the same happened in the VSL, because they took from the same pool of people.89

The teacher quality issues in ethnic schools have been addressed in recent years. “You used

to have people teaching in their spare room and they’d have 50 kids in a bedroom and stuff

like that. I don't think that happens any more. Because with the advent of public funding for

Ethnic Schools, there is a lot more control, there has been a lot of professional development

done, thanks to the Ethnic Schools Association.”90

Stefan Romaniw, who is the Executive Director of Community Languages Australia, believes

that today, the main difference between the VSL and the community language schools is in

the level of authenticity that is offered to students.

With the VSL, you attend school for a couple of hours in the morning and that’s it. Whereas, with the Community Language Schools, there's other engagements that happen and they are community linked. So children are immersed more into a community.91

88 Interview with “Edward”, 2013. 89 Interview with Anne Eckstein, 2013. 90 Ibid. 91 Interview with Stefan Romaniw, 2013.


228

It was not unusual for the VSL and the ethnic schools to merge.92 When this happened,

teachers gained important benefits when joining the VSL staff. The fact that they were better

paid and were able to access professional development programs were important steps

towards becoming official, legitimated staff members. Another teacher who taught at a

church run Macedonian school remembers that shifting to the SSML appealed to families

because it was less costly for the students. In 1983, the fees at the ethnic school were as

much as $50 for the year, because they were charged rent for the premises. The SSML, on

the other hand, charged a $10 service fee that was more affordable, because it used

government school premises and therefore did not have to pay rent. Shifting to the SSML

was a solution to this problem.93

The difference in tuition fees is due to the fact that the VSL’s programs are offered under the

umbrella of the Victorian government’s education system. Interviewees reported that some

groups of parents mistakenly assume that the higher tuition fees at ethnic schools

automatically equate to a better standard of education for their children. One VSL teacher

recalls a parent’s incredulous reaction when he heard how low the VSL’s tuition fee was: “I

heard a parent say “$70? How much do you think you’re going to learn for $70?” He was

talking Greek. And I said, “Listen, it doesn't matter how much money you spend.”94

Anecdotal evidence also indicated that similar perceived concerns about value for money and

tuition fees have also been raised in the Chinese language community. This assumption has

little to do with the VSL’s legitimacy as an official government school. It can be seen as a

symptom of a broader trend among some groups of Australian parents towards private

schooling and away from government education.

Several interviewees emphasised that there are a number of other important differences

between the VSL and the community language schools. To begin with, the VSL’s strengths

lie in the fact that it is a government school and therefore is not for profit, and it is politically

neutral in its agenda:

There are a lot of community schools which obviously have all the best interests of their children and communities in mind, sometimes misguided, sometimes overprotective and sometimes politically motivated - none of which we [the VSL] can really control. All we

92 Interview with “Elisaveta”, 2013. 93 Interview with “Zaklina”, 2013. 94 Interview with “Alexios”, 2013


229

can do is offer a centralised government-based service that people may wish to use, or not.95

The politically neutral agenda of the VSL is an important element in its claim for legitimacy

and this will be explored later.

7.2.8 The legitimacy of VCE level provision

There are several other important differences between the community language schools and

the VSL. One is the VSL’s ability to provide language classes at the senior secondary level.

As a government school, the VSL has access to the support and frameworks to be able to

offer VCE level classes. Gearon explains that strict accreditation requirements prevent some

privately run language schools from being able to offer classes to VCE level, but that the

VSL can help them in this area:

Some Community Languages Schools are accredited to offer VCE classes, but because the accreditation for community languages is so strict - they have to have at least one qualified mainstream teacher and that person must be teaching the VCE classes, Year 11 and 12. A lot of those schools simply couldn’t afford it financially… it was easier for them to encourage their students to go to the VSL because it was better financed.96

Teaching at VCE level requires access to other types of infrastructure that can effectively

exclude community language schools. As one teacher recalls: “They didn’t have the expertise

and they needed to be a registered sort of provider and they needed to be able to put kids on

the VASS system and of course that would have been beyond them.”97

Just as it has for many decades, the VSL also continues to provide important support to newly

arrived groups in seeking to gain accreditation for VCE. As one VSL staff member explains,

the school has built up considerable expertise in this area over the years: “Currently I’m

helping the Karen get VCE accreditation for their language… This is a sort of community

95 Interview with “Milan”, 2013 96 Interview with Margaret Gearon, 2013 97 Interview with “Elisaveta”, 2013. VASS stands for Victorian Assessment Software System. It is a central database that is run by the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. Schools enter their VCE student results onto the VASS system.


230

and language development work that we can offer, and if they were on their own, it would be

very, very difficult.”98

Achieving accreditation as a VCE subject is one of the key elements involved in gaining

legitimacy for heritage language subjects. As a provider that is able to offer programs at the

high stakes of VCE level, the VSL has gained an additional degree of status and authority

that flows on from the legitimacy associated with the official qualification that is the VCE.

7.2.9 Combined arrangements

In some cases, the ethnic schools merged with the SSML yet continued to exist as a sort of

hybrid of both the SSML and the ethnic school. A combined arrangement evolved at the

Collingwood Centre. In the late 1980s, the VSL was running classes alongside those

delivered by the Collingwood Turkish Welfare Association, together on the same site. From

1988 onwards, it was decided that the private school would merge with the VSL.99

Parents and teachers were happy for this change to happen: “It would be more beneficial for

the kids, for their future. The certificate that they were going to get would be recognised

within Australia.”100 Furthermore, by joining the VSL, the fee that parents were required to

pay was significantly reduced. Teachers also benefitted, as they were able to attend twice

yearly professional development in-services, as well as receiving a degree of recognition

through their affiliation with the Education Department.

After the merger, however, the Turkish Welfare Association remained closely involved and

students benefitted from a hybrid arrangement. The total lesson time of the VSL classes was

three hours but after these had finished, students continued on to take additional afternoon

lessons which were delivered by the Welfare Association. These were lessons in traditional

dance, theatre, art, and folklore. Parents paid a low fee to the Welfare Association on top of

their regular VSL fees. This arrangement continued until 2005, when it was decided that the

98 Ibid. 99 Interview with Atilla Akgüner, 2014. 100 Ibid.


231

Turkish classes at the Collingwood Centre would merge with another centre, due to

demographic changes in the inner suburbs of Melbourne.101

7.2.10 The VSL as supporter of the community language schools sector

It is clear that the VSL has supported the community language schools in many ways over the

years. One teacher of Greek was able to make a direct comparison because he works at both a

community language school on a Friday afternoon as well as on a Saturday morning at the

VSL. He uses the same Greek textbook in both the private school and the VSL classes, and

these are the books that are specially produced by the VSL. He believes that these books

provide the best preparation for the VCE and well are well suited to the Australian context:

“Actually the VSL teaching material I can vouch for, it tops everything else.”102

In this respect, the community language schools gain valuable support from the VSL to be

able to deliver quality programs. Another VSL staff member also shared this view:

From a teaching perspective, I think they’re [community language schools] always behind us. If you look at the way they functioned 15 years ago, they’re a long way behind. And everything they’ve done since then, and they have improved, has been following what the VSL does. So half the submissions that go in for ethnic school languages use VSL curriculum documents or VSL forms.103

He also suggests that a large proportion of the current Chinese teachers in Victoria gained

their first teaching experience at the VSL. In this respect, the VSL has acted as a leader and

as a professional developer for teachers.

We have a sort of nurturing and pushing out of expertise and experience into other spheres of education that I think is good. Our role should be to generate things. Our role should be to be first port of call, to introduce new languages. Hopefully, then get them into mainstream and elsewhere - as we did historically.104

101 Ibid. 102 Interview with “Alexios”, 2013. 103 Interview with “Milan”, 2013. 104 Ibid.


232

7.2.11 The VSL as a “soft place to fall” for newly arrived communities

The VSL has become accepted as a centre of expertise in language education, and its

experience in supporting many languages can be seen as a further key difference between the

VSL and the community language schools, which offer expertise in single languages. The

VSL has become known for its experience in nurturing the language programs of recently

arrived communities. Recent examples include Karen, Chin Hakha and Dinka. “We’re getting

new emerging communities coming into the school and it’s really good because they get that

professional language support.”105 This support can be a long and involved process that

requires help from other professionals in addition to those at the VSL:

Some of the African languages that are presenting haven’t been standardised because of the wars and the terrible things that have happened over the past 20 or 30 years. So for example, Dinka is being standardised by the people who’ve come here. So it’s like, “Yes we can do the classes - but unless you’ve made these decisions about the language, forget about trying to align it to the Australian curriculum.” These people are still going through these issues. They need as much support from academics and linguists in that process to help them find a path. They need a lot of assistance and they’re in the right place for it but it’s not enough from us. They need more than that.106

This is an example of the VSL pioneering extremely important language development work

that not only benefits local communities but also has far reaching international ramifications.

The VSL’s work in this area can be used as models for other immigrant societies overseas

that may also be seeking to integrate new languages into their school curricula.

The introduction of Karen was considered hugely significant for that community: “When

Karen was introduced here, it was the first time ever that the language has been taught in a

government school anywhere in the world, so it was absolutely enormous for those

people.”107 She believes that the VSL has been a great supporter of languages: “It’s been a

soft place to fall for languages where they can just be and grow, if they so desired.”108 Others

105 Interview with “Elisaveta”, 2013. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid.


233

point out that language teachers associations also have expertise in this area, and that they

also do a lot of professional development and a lot of promotion and development.109

As Gearon explains, the establishment of a community language school is an expensive and

difficult proposition and places a significant financial burden on newly arrived communities:

To open a Community Languages School, you’ve got to have about $15,000 in the bank. I’m thinking of the African languages, they’re the most recent arrivals. And they can get a little seeding grant to set up, but if they don’t have the money to hire a building, a school or a church hall or a scout hall or something like that, then they’re not going be able to demonstrate over a three-year period that they can attract a certain number of students and staff and maintain the program. 110

For newly arrived groups, the existence of the VSL is significant because it is an active

structure that is ready to provide support and assistance, without imposing a financial burden.

7.2.12 The realities of the “marketplace” of complementary language provision

While it appears that many tensions between the VSL and the mainstream system have been

resolved, it is clear that the relationship between the VSL and the community language

school continues to be a delicate one. In today’s environment where different sectors vie for

student enrolments and precious funding, the two sectors continue to see each other as rivals.

It is not clear whether the “great animosity” that Abiuso referred to has been resolved.

It is often suggested that the two should be working together rather than seeing each other as

a threat. As Lo Bianco says: “I think the VSL has to have an open mind to them. You cannot

try to close them down. You can’t campaign against them. You have to collaborate with them

and see that the niche that the VSL has is different from what those schools do.”111 Eckstein

agrees that they should be collaborating:

I think they could do a lot more work together on materials, on professional development, and on training. And I think they need to get past any personality and any territory stuff. You know, “We’re

109 Interview with Anne Eckstein, 2013. 110 Interview with Margaret Gearon, 2013. 111 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013.


234

competing with you.” [But] I guess maybe that’s always going to be there.112

One VSL staff member also concedes that finding a positive working relationship between

the VSL and the ethnic schools is a difficult task: “I’ve got no problems working with the

private providers where they want to cooperate. But there are some that are pretty tough

operators and they just see you as competition, try and take students away from you, all that

sort of thing… Everyone would be better off if it was better integrated but it’s not and that’s

the political reality.”113

7.2.13 Future directions

Ferguson believes that in the future, the VSL is likely to play a bigger role, considering recent

changes to the Victorian curriculum:

I think schools are going to rationalise their language programs very strongly, especially when they are going to be forced to provide Prep to Year 10 all the way through, and we might see the number of languages offered at each school reduced. But there will still be students who will want to do a language that isn't offered at the school. And I think principals will say [to students], “You do your work at the VSL or your community language school, we provide you time at school, but that's going to fulfil your requirement around language at the school.” And I think that's going to be increasingly acceptable, and the norm rather than the exception. So I think it's quite an exciting time for the VSL.114

Lo Bianco agrees that the VSL will continue to play an important role now and into the future.

He sees the experimental capacity of the VSL as unlike that in any other education system,

and that this is one of the school’s key assets: “There should be more of that

[experimentation] and I think the VSL has potential for much more of that into the future.”115

He also believes that the school has a greater role to play beyond the borders of Victoria.

“Look at what it’s got. It’s got a lot of teachers. It’s got a lot of materials. It’s got a

concentration of things. It just needs imagination to make this available. I can’t see why it

couldn’t develop an international market easily.”116

112 Interview with Anne Eckstein, 2013. 113 Interview with “Milan”, 2013. 114 Interview with Andrew Ferguson, 2013. 115 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013. 116 Ibid.


235

Section 3: Research questions and contribution to knowledge

The final section of this chapter returns to the two guiding research questions that were stated

at the beginning of this thesis. It is now possible to address the two research questions in

detail before making several statements about the contribution that thesis has made to the

body of knowledge in this field, and about reflecting on the methodology and theory that was

chosen as the approach for this research project.

7.3.1 Question 1: How did the VSL and its language communities gain and maintain legitimacy within the education system?

The quest for legitimacy has been a defining journey for both the VSL itself as well as for its

language communities. The theories developed by Meyer and Rowan and of Clark were

useful for explaining the stages that the school went through, and to analyse the events that

occurred on the road to the VSL’s increased status and credibility as an official state

specialist language school.117 Mercurio and Scarino’s ideas also helped to explain how

individual language communities worked hard to acquire legitimacy within the Victorian

education system through a long and drawn out process that took place in several stages.118

There is overwhelming evidence that the VSL’s quest for legitimacy began from the time of

the school’s origins in 1935 and in many respects, its search for legitimacy still continues

today. Meyer and Rowan’s theory asserts that external institutional rules, or understandings

of social reality, have an enormous impact on organisations and the capacity for organisations

to gain and maintain legitimacy. This theory suggested that right from its origins in 1935, the

VSL was compelled to incorporate these external elements into its operations in order to gain

legitimacy and to increase its prospects for survival.119

The Saturday classes that started in 1935 were merely a “special experiment” set up to pilot a

niche curriculum area that had not been offered before, but their operations did fit neatly with

many of the externally prescribed myths espoused by the Victorian education system. In

earlier chapters, it was demonstrated that the “special experiment” aligned itself closely with

117 Meyer 1980, Meyer and Rowan 1977, Clark 1972. 118 Mercurio and Scarino 2005. 119 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 343.


236

many of the official structures of the education system. The classes were initiated by the

Education Department, lending the classes a vital element of legitimacy. The Japanese and

Italian curriculum copied those of established and elite subjects such as French and Latin.

Teachers were qualified and highly credentialled Education Department professionals and the

classes took place in the classrooms of one of Melbourne’s most prestigious schools. In terms

of Meyer and Rowan’s theory, all of these elements suggest that the school was making valid

claims as a legitimate organisation. Student achievements were publicly praised by the

Education Department’s senior officials, and these statements served to maintain the

legitimacy of the operation and support arguments for its continuation. Yet the paradoxical

element that Meyer and Rowan’s theory could not explain is that all of this took place in spite

of the fact that the Saturday classes were not an official school, they were simply a service

that mimicked the profile of a school. As students from the early decades mentioned, they

had no idea that the school they had attended was the precursor to the VSL. They had

assumed that the Saturday classes were simply offered by the “host” school, as an extension

of the curriculum. In this respect, the Saturday classes were still lacking in a name and an

identity, and as such, they had a long way to go before they could be considered legitimate in

the same way that other officially recognised government schools could.

Meyer and Rowan’s theory emphasised the crucial power of external constituencies in

Australian society, and the importance of this external support for the school’s claims for

legitimacy. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, in the early period, there was a very limited

external constituency for whom language programs in Japanese, Italian, Dutch or Russian

were important. This also hindered the school’s claim for legitimacy, because it lacked the

strong external public opinion that was needed to support these programs. In the early

decades, the Saturday language programs had small enrolments and only appealed to a small,

niche group of academically minded students.

In Chapter 5, however, Meyer and Rowan’s theory helped to explain the dramatic increase in

the school’s presence and status with the rise of multiculturalism. It highlighted how the

school’s external institutional contexts began to undergo a dramatic shift around the mid-

1960s, and that this change had a profound effect on the school. Around the mid-1960s,

external institutional support for a more diversified and innovative language curriculum

began to grow. When Australian society became increasingly multilingual, the broader level

of interest in programs for language maintenance gathered support among many powerful


237

constituencies, enough to accelerate the development of the school’s innovative curriculum.

Meyer and Rowan’s theories helped to emphasise the importance of the groundswell of

support that grew for the school, and the profound impact that this had on the school’s claim

for legitimacy. It was undoubtedly due to the increasingly favourable public opinion towards

multilingualism that the SSML was able to gain enough support to make its transformation

into the VSL. It is clear that the school heavily depended on this favourable shift in external

institutional contexts for its official recognition to take place. It can be speculated that

without this critical groundswell of support for multilingualism in Victoria, it is doubtful that

the SSML would have realised its goal to be upgraded to an official state school.

In Chapter 5, Clark’s theory of the Organizational Saga proved useful in explaining the

personal aspects in this particular part of the school’s journey towards legitimacy.120 It

highlighted the role of individuals and the emotional elements of the school’s history. It

helped to explain the motivation of individuals such as Joe Abiuso, who worked hard to

achieve a strong purpose, and who passionately campaigned to have school upgraded and

raised to an official status. Clark’s theory also explained why the VSL employees felt such

strong emotions for the school, and it suggested that stories such as these often take place in

unique, innovative and special organisations.

As shown earlier in this chapter, for the individual language communities, acquiring

legitimacy within the Victorian education system was a long and drawn out process that took

several stages. The explanation of these struggles was illuminated by the ideas developed by

Mercurio and Scarino. 121 Advocates for heritage language subjects formed subject

communities and they lobbied to have their language programs included in established

structures in the education system. There were countless instances of this throughout the

school’s history. Through a process called “grafting”, the heritage language subjects acquired

increased status and legitimacy by being included in the curriculum of the VSL.

The increasing number of heritage languages inevitably resulted in a swelling of the VSL’s

student enrolments. This brought the school an increased presence in Victoria that served to

increase the school’s “critical mass.” This element undoubtedly improved the school’s claims

for legitimacy, although this phenomenon could not be explained by Meyer and Rowan’s 120 Clark 1972. 121 Mercurio and Scarino 2005.


238

theory. It can be speculated that without the inclusion of the heritage languages in its

curriculum, and the acquisition of this “critical mass” in terms of student enrolments, the

VSL would not have had such a compelling and powerful claim for legitimacy as an

organisation. It can be speculated that without the inclusion of the heritage language subjects,

Abiuso’s passionate campaign for the school to be upgraded to an official state school may

not have been successful. In this respect, it is clear that the VSL and the heritage language

subjects enjoyed an interdependent relationship; they relied on each other to achieve the

legitimacy and increased status that they both needed for their ongoing survival in the

education system. Without the other, they may not have achieved their goal of becoming an

official part of the state education system in Victoria.

Yet as demonstrated earlier in this chapter, for the heritage language subjects, the grafting

process and the acquisition of legitimacy was not always a smooth process. Many language

communities encountered difficulties in having their languages established at the school.

They were required to relinquish control of their language subjects and design curricula that

conformed to the generic requirements set out by the Education Department. In the 1970s, the

SSML and the Education Department worked closely with subject communities to develop

knowledge and understanding of these requirements. It was made clear that political,

religious or cultural concerns had to be abandoned in favour of politically neutral curricula

that focused solely on linguistic elements.122 In many cases, private or church run community

language schools willingly complied and amalgamated their operations with the SSML or the

VSL because they recognised that belonging to a school that was auspiced by the Education

Department would bring a certain level of legitimacy to their operation and to the status of

the language itself. By joining the school, these languages gained access to frameworks that

provided support for curriculum development, teacher training, and remuneration and so

on.123

Yet the VSL’s efforts to design politically neutral curricula can also be understood as a

critical element in the school’s ongoing efforts to maintain its legitimacy as an official

Victorian government school. Meyer’s theory suggests that the VSL’s prospects for long-

term survival rested on its ability to deliver a curriculum that was considered appropriate by

122 Education Department, 14 April 1972, VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 – 1973. 123 Interview with “Elisaveta”, 2013.


239

all constituents.124 For an Education Department organisation, being seen to support a

curriculum that was not politically neutral posed a significant risk that could jeopardise the

school’s ongoing survival. Oral testimonies also suggest that the school’s politically neutral

way of negotiating competing political agendas in fact became seen as one of its strengths

and one of the key characteristics that set it apart from community language schools.125

As shown in Chapter 6, the VSL’s relationships with other sectors started to change after it

began to occupy a more established position as a credible and legitimate organisation. As

Meyer and Rowan explain, when a powerful organisation forces its immediate relational

network to adapt to its structures and relations, this network includes its competitors.126 As

highlighted in Section 1 of this chapter, the uneasy relationships between the VSL and the

ethnic schools can be understood as the VSL’s competitors resisting pressure to adapt to the

VSL’s role and presence. Some of the perspectives presented in this chapter suggest that

there were times when the mainstream sector and the ethnic schools sector resisted this push

to adapt to the VSL’s structures and relations. They believed that they were in fact the

rightful provider of languages programs. They argued on the grounds that their programs

were delivered in a more authentic setting, that the structure of their program was

pedagogically better, or that their teachers were better qualified. As Abiuso explained, the

fierce competition for funding was central to this rivalry.127

Yet as demonstrated in this chapter, it is clear that both the mainstream sector and the ethnic

schools have benefitted from the presence of the VSL. It has acted as a leader in the field and

has provided support to other sectors in the form of teacher training and professional

development activities, in the development of teaching materials, and in the support and

nurturing of recently arrived language communities. It has also supported the other providers

by taking on the role as an authority at VCE level. It has supported the mainstream sector by

reducing pressure on mainstream schools to offer programs in languages that were difficult to

provide. In recent years, it has provided short-term support to mainstream schools in helping

them to establish language programs.128 This is an element that Meyer and Rowan’s theory

124 Meyer 1980, p. 48. 125 Interview with “Milan”, 2013, Interview with “Redmond”, 2013. 126 Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 348. 127 Abiuso, ‘Application for the position of Principal at the Victorian School of Languages.’ 128 Interview with “Milan”, 2013.


240

could not explain. It can be speculated, however, that an organisation such as the VSL would

increase its claims for validity and legitimacy as it becomes a leader in its field.

It is clear that the VSL’s presence as a legitimate provider also had more far reaching

consequences, beyond that of its immediate relations. In 1977, Kesarik provided support for

the establishment of the Saturday School of Community languages in New South Wales.

The formation of this school was inspired by the SSML.129 Later, in 1985, the SSML also

provided the Education Department in South Australia with the necessary information to

assist its establishment of a school modelled on the SSML.130 The fact that the school was

used as a model to establish similar schools in other states indicates that it had a very

significant influence on language education around Australia, beyond that of its immediate

network or competitors. Again, this goes beyond Meyer and Rowan’s ideas about

organisations playing an active role in shaping their institutional contexts. Their ideas do not

make allowances for organisations becoming leaders and models for other jurisdictions to

emulate.

Yet it is clear that the VSL’s quest to maintain its legitimacy is an ongoing one. As stated at

the beginning of this chapter, it is now widely accepted that language provision is delivered

by a multiplicity of providers and modes. This has been acknowledged in the Victorian

government’s latest plan for language education.131 As a result of this new, broader definition

of language delivery, a multiplicity of providers have been given the scope to co-exist. Yet

given the government’s increased funding for ethnic schools, and the fact that that VSL’s

budget has not been increased, it appears that the complementary language education

marketplace continues to be highly contested.132 For some senior VSL staff, this uncertain

climate poses a threat to the VSL’s ongoing security and legitimated position in the Victorian

education system.133

129 K Strong, 16 September 1977, VSL archives. 130 Education Department of Victoria Annual Report 1984 – 85, p. 104-105. 131 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2013, p. 3. 132 Department of Education and Training, ‘Grants. DEECD Community Languages Schools - Per capita grants’, 2015. 133 Interview with “Edward”, 2013.


241

7.3.2 Question 2: How was the VSL shaped by “macro” and “micro” language policy and planning?

The VSL has been characterised in terms of the tension between bottom up, community

driven “micro” language policy and top down, “macro” language policy. It was Leitner who

described the VSL as a “grass-roots initiative that was absorbed by a top-down policy.”134

However this analysis has demonstrated that the case of the VSL cannot simply be

characterised in terms of Leitner’s ideas. Leitner’s statement was not so much a theoretical

construct that helped to explain the way that the VSL interacted with language policy; rather

it was a question that could be used to frame this aspect of the school’s development.

Historical analysis has strongly suggested that the VSL’s development is far more complex

than this binary definition of language policy.

In micro level language planning, the communities themselves are “active agents and

advocates for the maintenance of their cultural and linguistic heritage, rather than passive

recipients of government support”.135 It would appear that this was not the case for Japanese

and Italian, the first languages to be introduced at the school. These were introduced as a

result of pressure from subject communities comprised of senior education department

officials, university academics and the Dante Alighieri Society in the case of Italian. Even in

the later period of the SSML, and also in the current period of the VSL, the frequent requests

for the addition of new languages come from subject community members, many of whom

who are active agents and advocates at the “grassroots” level. So while it undoubtedly shows

the importance of some elements of micro level language policy and planning, it must be

acknowledged that all of these developments have taken place within the construct and under

the auspices of a state government department. The classes have always operated with the full

knowledge, support and approval of the Education Department.

As explained in Chapter 4, Lo Bianco asserts that the Victorian government’s decision to

initiate the classes could be interpreted as deliberate language policy changes that were

designed to enhance Australia’s intelligence efforts: “espionage and strategic interests have

always been very closely tied to language policy”.136 These developments were made as top-

down, macro level initiatives, and they came from the government. He believes that these 134 Leitner 2004, p. 263. 135 Hatoss 2006, p. 287. 136 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013.


242

programs were seen to be “targeted language learning” and the VSL was what enabled the

education system to deliver targeted programs.137 These ideas also contest Leitner’s theory

that the school was a grassroots initiative.

Furthermore, Lo Bianco explains that language policy is often contradictory. For example, in

the late 1950s, when the school began to take on the role of teaching Russian to large

numbers of migrant children at the St Alban’s High School on Saturday mornings, the

government’s official policy of assimilationism was still in place. The government’s official

policy was for migrants to be distributed as widely as possible with the aim that it would

prevent ethnic enclaves from forming.138 In the case of the case of the Saturday classes, it was

not unusual for approaches to languages to be idiosyncratic: “I think that what happened was

that there was no over-arching language policy or surveillance. So, there were different levels

of autonomy in different agencies and so lots of contradictory things did happen. There

would have been people there making local decisions that would have been seen by the

higher-ups to be just administration.”139

He also adds that a further contradictory element is that at that time, this type of language

teaching was still illegal. “We have to keep in mind that any of this was actually illegal under

the Victorian Education Act until very recently. The clauses that had been introduced in

1918 banned bilingual education and sometimes bilingual education was interpreted to mean

teaching languages, not just teaching in them.”140

Through its support of the SSML, the Victorian Education Department provided the

framework for community languages to be included in the state education system. It was

because of the support and the approval of the Education Department that the community

advocates could have their requests accommodated. In this respect, the school was indeed the

product of top down, government driven macro level language policies, but those policies

were influenced by the political action of communities on the grassroots level. As one

interviewee explained it, government policy played a large part in the development of the

school:

137 Ibid. 138 Ozolins 1993, p. 9 139 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013. 140 Ibid.


243

I think it was much more to do with government policy than it was to do with particular language groups. Because government policy represents the aggregation of the wishes of different community groups. And no one was strong enough to do anything much by itself. So I think political action and government policy was what pushed it. But it had to be pushed.141

Leitner suggests that in the later period, there came a time when the VSL was “absorbed by a

top-down policy”.142 Here, he is no doubt referring to the policy developments of 1987 when

the National Policy on Languages (NPL) was introduced. Under this policy, community

language teaching received support, funding and legitimisation.143 From 1987 onwards, the

school’s work officially matched the agenda of official government policies, of which the

NPL was one. But the school had long been committed to the community languages cause.

By 1987, it was already teaching 31 languages, most of which were community languages.144

The school’s work, which had largely been pioneering and experimental up until that time,

finally gained a level of legitimisation; in that it coincided with a large scale, national policy.

In terms of Meyer and Rowan’s theory, this alignment between the school’s work and “macro”

language policy could be seen as a dramatic increase in the level of external institutional

support for education in community languages, which was closely intermeshed with changes

in Australia’s official language policies.

From this time, due to its recognition as an official state school, the VSL was more compelled

than ever to align its programs to official language policy. Gearon believes that 1988 was an

important marker for the school. After 1988, it was more compelled to conform to official

language policy than it had been before:

In the early years, they didn’t have to. So they were a bit more like community languages. They could offer anything they wanted that students and their parents were interested in. But as soon as they were given school status, that meant that they had to teach the curriculum that Victoria was offering in mainstream schools, from Prep to Year 12. Nowadays I think their programs are definitely shaped by those languages policies and interestingly it is now the same for community languages.145

141 Interview with Bill and Lorna Hannan, 2013. 142 Leitner 2004, p. 263. 143 Lo Bianco 1987. 144 SSML, ‘Ministry of Education Victoria, Saturday School of Modern Languages, Gross Enrolments – March - 1987’, VSL archives. 145 Interview with Margaret Gearon, 2013.


244

In the current context, the school is still obliged to follow official government language

policy. However, there are times when it can still pursue its original purpose, which was to

pilot innovative programs. As one VSL staff member explains: “We follow the priorities of

the state government and also the federal government. But we’ll also test the water and see

whether there are other demands.”146

With its emphasis on flexible delivery by multiple providers, including complementary

providers, it appears that the Victorian government’s most recent macro policy about

language education has shifted away from a “one size fits all” approach and evolved to a

more flexible strategy.147 Despite this, schools are increasingly expected to reduce their

programs and concentrate on a smaller number of well-established “priority” languages.148 In

this context that favours flexible modes of delivery, the VSL is supported in its mandate to

continue to “take the slack” and cater to the students who wish to study languages that

become excluded through this process of rationalisation. It is likely that the VSL will

continue to be one of the only schools to maintain the expertise and knowledge base for the

teaching of those languages. Even though official policies may shift and change what is

taught in the classrooms of mainstream schools, the VSL’s task remains unchanged; it

continues to be a constant centre of expertise and knowledge for language education,

regardless of the macro policies of the day.

Leitner’s statement about the VSL and about its relationship with micro and macro language

policy and planning provided this thesis with a useful question or reference that could be

reflected on every now and then. The fact that it was so brief and under developed reinforced

the dearth of scholarly knowledge and material about the school. The historical analysis of

the school’s relationship with language policy suggests that the VSL is the result of both top

down, macro level language policy that worked in conjunction with community interests.

Together, these two elements shaped the school’s curriculum and development.

146 Interview with “Edward”, 2013. 147 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, The Victorian Government’s Vision for Languages Education, Melbourne Victoria, 2011, p. 4. 148 Interview with Andrew Ferguson, 2013.


245

7.3.3 Reflections on methodology and theory

As stated in Chapter 3 Methodology, due to the inductive nature of historical methodology,

the question of which theories to utilise in this thesis took some time to finalise. After the

historical analysis began, and the narrative started to be drawn together, the issue of

legitimacy emerged as the central theme of the thesis. It was only then that the theories that

had the capacity to explain the intricacies and complexities of organisational legitimacy were

selected.

As shown throughout this thesis, the theories of Meyer and Rowan proved very useful for

illuminating the processes that the VSL went through in order to gain and maintain

legitimacy as a valid and official organisation within the Victorian education system.149 This

theory was used extensively in Chapters 4 – 7. The constructs of Meyer and Rowan’s theory

were broad enough and flexible enough to apply to the many elements of the VSL story. The

language of this theory had the descriptive power to highlight the significance of external

public opinion and the critical role that it played in the VSL’s journey towards recognition. It

highlighted that the VSL’s quest for legitimacy could only be fully realised once key external

institutional constituents in Victoria were favourable and positive towards multilingualism. In

this respect, Meyer and Rowan’s theory emphasised that the timing of the VSL’s recognition

as an official state school was no coincidence. It can be speculated that it was not until 1988

that Victoria was ready to embrace a state specialist language school, and this is why it took

so many years for Abiuso’ dream to be realised.

The language of Meyer and Rowan’s theory also had the capacity to explain how the VSL

managed to maintain its legitimacy by avoiding certain risks and pitfalls that could destabilise

the school’s claim as a valid government school. Finally, it also highlighted the impact that

the VSL had on its relational networks such as the mainstream sector and the community

language schools. However, this construct did not go far enough, because it could not explain

the way that the VSL became a model for other states in Australia to emulate, and the

profound impact that this had on its claim for legitimacy.

The ideas developed by Mercurio and Scarino were an appropriate lens for exploring the

process that heritage language subjects went through in order to gain and maintain legitimacy 149 Meyer and Rowan 1977.


246

in the Victorian education system.150 This was a valid and useful approach for this thesis

because these are specialised ideas that focus specifically on the field of heritage language

subjects. Illuminating the stories of the languages that became established at the SSML and

the VSL through this lens enabled this thesis to provide a real life example of how these

processes and struggles played out in the case of Victoria. Mercurio and Scarino’s ideas

helped to highlight the interests and agendas of the language groups, and the ways that they

were forced to conform to well established curriculum frameworks and standardise their

syllabi in order to gain acceptance. Combining these elements with Meyer and Rowan’s

theory was a valuable approach that also shed light on the potential risks for the VSL and the

reasons why it had to work together with language communities. It helped to explain that the

school was compelled to offer standardised, politically neutral programs in order to maintain

its image as a legitimate and valid government provider of language programs.

Clark’s theory of the Organizational Saga was a useful approach for explaining the emotional

elements of the school’s history.151 It helped to explain the role of individuals such as Joe

Abiuso, who worked hard to achieve a strong purpose, and who passionately campaigned to

have school upgraded and raised to an official status. Clark’s theory also explained the

motivation of individuals and why they felt such strong connections to the school. Clark’s

theory explained that these phenomena can often take place in unique, innovative and special

organisations, which is undoubtedly the case for the VSL. In this respect, Clark’s theory

seemed to be a good fit for the VSL. In addition, using this theory provided an opportunity to

document a real life example of a very strong Organizational Saga.

However, there were some elements of the VSL’s story that were simply too unorthodox,

paradoxical or complex to be adequately explained by these theoretical frames. The

Organizational Saga could not be detected in the very early period of the VSL’s existence,

due to the limited availability of oral sources, and this reduced its applicability to the early

part of the narrative. In this early period of the school’s origins, another element that the

theories could not explain was the way in which the Saturday language classes managed to

appear to be a legitimate operation, because in the constructs of Meyer and Rowan’s theory,

it appeared to satisfy all of the apparent requirements for a valid and legitimate school. Yet

paradoxically, it was not an official state school. 150 Mercurio and Scarino 2005. 151 Clark 1972.


247

In later periods, another element that could not be explained by theory was the degree of

legitimacy that appeared to come from the “critical mass”152 that was reached in the VSL’s

increasing enrolment numbers. From the 1970s onwards, when the school’s operations had

expanded to include many languages and centres, the student enrolments ballooned, and this

brought a strong sense that the school was simply “too big to ignore.” The inevitable

legitimacy and recognition that came from the school’s inalienable presence is something that

the constructs of Meyer and Rowan’s theory could not explain.

A further limitation is undoubtedly in the general and generic nature of Clark’s theory and of

Meyer and Rowan’s theory. The general nature of these theories undoubtedly limited their

applicability in the case of the VSL. These two theories could not specifically explain issues

in the area of state specialist language education, which is highly contested and complex.

These theories could not account for the school’s longevity despite its existence on the

fringes of the state education system. They could not account for the paradoxical and

contradictory nature of the VSL story. It survived on the margins but it has been a powerful

and influential institution that has greatly enhanced the language education landscape in

Victoria. In a similar vein, these theories could not explain the VSL’s low profile and poor

status in the consciousness of most Victorians, despite its pioneering and innovative work in

language education.

There were also gaps in the ideas developed by Mercurio and Scarino. In the case of this

thesis, the story of the heritage language groups and their journey for legitimacy in the

Victorian education system was inextricably tied to the work of the VSL. A natural extension

of these ideas would be to articulate the critical role that the state specialist language schools

played in supporting the legitimisation process for heritage language subjects. Modifying and

extending Mercurio and Scarino’s idea in this way would facilitate its application to the

context of state specialist language schools in other states.

152 Interview with “Milan”, 2013.


248

7.3.4 Contribution to knowledge

This thesis has made several contributions to the body of knowledge about language

education in Australia. The first way in which it has contributed is by documenting the VSL’s

journey. The second way it has contributed is by providing an empirical analysis of the

VSL’s history and its journey towards legitimacy. To date, few scholars have documented the

history of the VSL. This is in spite of many scholars declaring the school to be a significant

institution in Australia. This thesis has been the first to draw on archival materials and oral

testimonies to create a historical narrative of the school’s history, dating from its origins in

1935.

Indeed, it would appear that this has been one of the first attempts to document a state

specialist language school at all. This thesis has provided an important first step in the

development of the literature about state specialist language schooling. It has developed a

scholarly knowledge about its relationship to Australia’s changing language policies and it

has contextualised the history of a state specialist language school against the development of

Australia’s education systems.

This thesis has also made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge about heritage

language subjects and the process that they went through in order to gain legitimacy in

Victoria. It has provided a real life example of the processes that were experienced by subject

communities who struggled to gain access to the Victorian education system and of the

integral role that the VSL played in supporting this. It has also provided real life examples of

the ways that heritage language subjects were expected to conform with the generic

frameworks and policies of the state education system in order to gain the legitimacy that

they desired.

This thesis has also made a contribution to the way that theory can be used to explain and

illuminate the phenomenon of state specialist language schooling. It is the first time that the

theoretical lenses of Meyer and Clark, and the ideas developed by Mercurio and Scarino have

been used to explain a state specialist language school. It is also the first time that these

theories and ideas have been used to investigate the VSL and the case of heritage languages

in Victoria.


249

Using a combined methodological framework of historical enquiry together with theoretical

analysis, this thesis illuminated the long and unorthodox road to legitimacy that the school

and its language communities travelled. It highlighted that the VSL and its language

communities remained on the sidelines for many decades, as an unofficial and experimental

extension of the state’s education system, despite the school playing an increasingly

significant role in educating the children of Victorian migrant groups as well as many others

who sought access to a more diverse language education for a myriad of reasons. This

tentative and fragile operation continued for decades until the favourable environment of the

1980s that embraced an ideology of multilingualism finally facilitated the school’s upgrade to

an official school.

In conducting this study, this thesis has rectified the VSL’s absence from the “grand narrative”

of the history of education in Australia. It has provided a first scholarly analysis of key issues

in the VSL’s history and development. This thesis has contributed to building a more whole

and complete literature that includes an analysis of the VSL, which is one of the key

providers of language provision in Victoria. It is hoped that future scholars can build on this

work and to focus on other aspects of the VSL’s history.

250

Chapter 8. Conclusion


8.1 Opening remarks

This thesis set out to investigate the quest for legitimacy of one unique institution, the VSL.

This school has taught languages for eighty years but spent its first fifty-three of those years

on the outskirts of the state education system. It was not integrated or considered an official

school. For this reason, the VSL essentially existed in the shadows, away from the spotlight,

and out of the literature. This study endeavoured to rectify this situation by finally

documenting the VSL’s unique and remarkable story. This thesis investigated the school’s

journey and it analysed the way that it made the transformation from its tentative,

experimental origins on the outskirts of the education system to its current form as an

officially recognised state specialist language school.

The historical analysis in this thesis revealed that in many ways, the VSL’s history could be

understood as a multi-layered quest for legitimacy and acceptance. Aided by the application

of several theoretical lenses, the analysis revealed that the VSL encountered many obstacles

and challenges on its journey to gain and maintain legitimacy in Victoria’s education system.

It also showed that there was a second quest that was taking place within the VSL’s story,

and that was the struggle that many heritage language subjects also went through in order to

gain and maintain legitimacy that they sought within the Australian education system. It

showed that these struggles were closely intertwined with each other, and it suggested that

the VSL and community language groups greatly helped each other in their respective quests

for legitimacy. Importantly, these stories highlighted the enormous contribution that the VSL

has made in supporting the development of Victoria’s rich and diverse language curriculum.

By investigating the VSL’s history, this study also enriched the discourse about the overall

landscape of language education in Australia, by enhancing the very scant body of literature

about complementary language provision. It illuminated the relationship between the VSL

and that which it is intended to complement, the mainstream school system. It also shed light

on the VSL’s relationship with other complementary providers; the community language

schools. Indeed, this thesis has highlighted very strongly that as Victoria’s state specialist

251


language school, the VSL acts as a great supporter of other education sectors and helps them

to provide quality language programs in many ways. This study also extended the applied

linguistics field, because it analysed how this special school interacted with Australia’s

changing language policies in education. It also investigated the way that micro and macro

level language policy and planning shaped the VSL’s development.

8.2 The research questions and their rationale

From the “Literature Review”, there is an extensive body of literature about the history and

the development of the education system in Australia. There is also sound a body of literature

about the history of the language curriculum area in Victoria. While some material has been

published about community language schools and about single languages, there is scant

existing literature about state specialist language schools, which represented a significant

problem for this study. In addition, there was very limited literature about the VSL in

particular. Of the material that does exist, it is largely fragmented, piecemeal or unpublished.

This also represented a substantial challenge for this study. Due to this significant gap in the

literature, very little scholarly knowledge exists about the VSL, how it came to be what it is

today, and what its role is. For this reason, the two theoretical research questions that were

drawn up were intended to establish a greater scholarly understanding about the school’s role

and about the way that it developed and evolved over time.

8.3 Answers to research questions

This thesis used a combination of approaches in conjunction with one another as a means to

arrive at the following answers to the research questions. It was “both a story and a study”1

which investigated and evaluated the school’s journey towards legitimacy.

8.3.1 How did the VSL and its language communities gain and maintain legitimacy

within the education system?

This study highlighted that the quest for legitimacy has been a defining journey for the VSL

as well as for its many language communities. As an organisation, the school went through a

1 Butterfield quoted in Bailyn 1982, p. 7.

252


long and eventful journey towards legitimacy. In the early period, the school attempted to

gain a degree of legitimacy through its close affiliation with the Education Department.

However, its size and presence in the education system was very limited. Students who

attended the classes were not aware of the school’s identity. They simply believed they were

attending an extension of the program of the “host” school.

It was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that the school started to make real progress in

its quest for legitimacy. As the SSML, the school benefitted greatly from increasing support

from the growing external constituencies for education in language maintenance. As Victoria

started to favour multilingualism, the external institutional contexts that underpinned support

for the school grew in power and number, and the school’s presence as a valid organisation

increased dramatically. This could be seen in the school’s exploding student enrolments,

languages taught and centres during the 1980s. In the late 1980s, this support was reinforced

by the NPL, Australia’s “macro” language policy that validated language education and

aligned with the school’s mission. Abiuso’s campaign to gain official recognition for the

school was a very strong and unifying quest for staff at the school, and one that has been

documented as a defining part of the school’s journey.

Starting in the early 1970s, subject communities representing heritage language subjects

worked hard with staff at the SSML to be included in the VSL curriculum. They recognised

that belonging to a school that was auspiced by the Education Department would bring a

certain level of legitimacy and raise the status of their languages. They also worked hard to

achieve an even higher level of legitimacy through the accreditation as HSC subjects.

However, this process was not always smooth and the school assisted many heritage language

subjects to gain the knowledge required to conform and fit in with the official generic

frameworks set by the Education Department in order to fit in to the school.

This thesis has shown that the heritage language subjects were nurtured and supported in

order to be included at the VSL. It is clear that this has been one of the many contributions

that the VSL has made to the Victorian education system and to Victorian students. It was

clearly due to the fact that they were able to be grafted on to the structure of the VSL that

they achieved the legitimacy that they sought. Yet it is also clear that the school’s fostering of

the heritage language subjects was one of the key elements that propelled it towards its status

as a valid and legitimate organisation. Through the grafting process, the school became one

253


of the main vehicles for a large number of heritage language subjects to gain access to the

Victorian education system. As the only government organisation that represented this large

group of heritage language subjects in the education system, it dramatically grew in authority

and in size. Due to its expanding number of centres, students and teachers, the school’s

increasing presence could not be ignored. Thanks to the heritage language subjects, the

school reached a ‘critical mass’ and came to occupy such an indispensable role that it was in

a prime position.

It is clear that the VSL’s journey towards legitimacy was closely intertwined with that of the

heritage language subjects. It can also be speculated that the VSL and the heritage language

subjects actually relied on each other to achieve the status and legitimacy that they both

needed in order to find their official places in the education system. It can also be speculated

that had the school not expanded its curriculum to incorporate these heritage language

subjects, it may have continued on as a small operation and with a low profile, and never

have had the chance to be upgraded as an official school. It is clear that the timing of events

was a crucial element; both the school and the heritage language subjects were able to ride

the “wave” of the groundswell of public support for multilingualism. In doing so, they

reached their shared goal of finding acceptance in the Victorian education system.

8.3.2 How was the VSL shaped by “macro” and “micro” language policy and planning?

Leitner described the VSL as a “grass-roots initiative that was absorbed by a top-down

policy”, suggesting that the school was shaped by grassroots level language policy and

planning in its early period, and then its practices coincided with macro level language policy

and planning later on.2 Yet this study revealed that the reality was far more complex.

This thesis found that the school was shaped by language policy and planning on both the

micro and the macro levels, right throughout its history. While there were certainly some

advocates on the community level who helped to initiate the language classes in 1935, it was

in fact a combined effort. The “special experiment” came about as a result of discussions and

meetings between officials in the Education Department, which auspiced the school’s

operations, and the subject communities. The subject communities consisted of academics,

2 Leitner 2004, p. 263.

254


community figures and leaders in the education field. The Victorian Education Department

provided the framework for these languages to be taught, by offering state school buildings

and paying the instructors to deliver the programs. So while it undoubtedly shows some

elements of micro level language policy and planning, it must be acknowledged that this took

place within the construct and under the auspices of a state government department. These

events cannot simply be characterised as the result of initiatives on the grassroots level.

It is also important to note that policy can at times be contradictory. Without an overarching

language policy or surveillance in place, there may have been different approaches adopted in

different autonomous government agencies and departments.3 The decision to establish

classes in Japanese and Italian can be understood as “targeted language learning” that were

designed to enhance Australia’s intelligence efforts.4 These developments were made as top-

down language policy initiatives, and they came from the government.

It is clear that from 1965-1987, there was a lot of activity going on at the “micro” level.

Community interests played a large part in the growth and the development of the school.

Many requests for the establishment of new language programs came directly from concerned

community members who were active agents and advocates at the “grassroots” level. In this

respect, it is clear that there was indeed some degree of micro level, grassroots involvement.

Yet it was through its continued support of the school that the Education Department

provided the framework for grassroots requests for community languages to be

accommodated. In this respect, the school was indeed the product of top down, government

driven macro level language policies, but those policies were influenced by the political

action of communities on the grassroots level.

Leitner suggested that the VSL would be “absorbed” by a “top down” policy. It is true that by

the time Abiuso was appointed in 1983, Victoria had introduced “macro” policies to support

the rights and needs of its many migrant communities. Support for multilingualism had

become a powerful force and this agenda aligned closely with the school’s innovative

mission. This acknowledgement of the importance of language education for all children was

reflected in the level of support and the funding that the Education Department gave to the

3 Interview with Joe Lo Bianco, 2013. 4 Ibid.

255


school for its ever-expanding operations. In this respect, there came a time when the “macro”

language policies did appear to clearly support the VSL.

By May 1987, government support for a broad range of language learning was cemented

further with Australia’s new and inclusive “macro” language policy, The National Policy on

Languages (NPL).5 But as demonstrated in this thesis, in the context of the SSML, the

Victorian government had already been providing this “top down” support for a highly

diverse group of language programs and language learners for some twenty years. As Rymer

explained, as early as 1965, the Victorian Education Department readily approved reasonable

requests for expansion and there were no budget limitations placed on the school’s growth. In

this sense, the Victorian Education Department’s support of languages was ahead of its time.

This also suggests that the school was not simply “absorbed” by “top down” language policy

as Leitner stated, but that the process was far more complex and nuanced.

8.4 This study’s contribution to the literatures

This thesis enhances what is known about the history of state schooling in Victoria.

Importantly, it throws light on the unique and remarkable story of the VSL itself. Finally, it

also extends what is known about the usefulness of several theories in analysing one state

specialist language school and its pursuit of legitimacy.

In regard to the literature in the applied linguistics field that relates to the tension between

macro and micro level language policy and planning, Leitner’s statement provided this study

with a valuable starting point.6 This thesis extended this body of literature by providing a

tangible, real life example of the way that the teaching practices at one institution

corresponded to a variety of policy influences over a long period of time. While these forces

may have appeared contradictory, the reality was that they were far more complex and

nuanced, and they in fact worked together to create what the VSL is today. The VSL grew

and developed in response to both grassroots level action in combination with top down,

government driven support.

5 Lo Bianco, 1987. 6 Leitner 2004, p. 263.

256


This thesis also made a contribution to the literature about organisational theory. It showed

that Meyer and Rowan’s theory does have a place as a useful lens for examining the history

of a state specialist language school. For the VSL, its quest for legitimacy was finally realised

as a result of the increasingly powerful wave of external institutional support for

multilingualism in Victoria. Yet there were several elements that could not be explained by

this theory, namely the fact that the school became a leader in its field, and the way it was

also upheld as a model to be emulated by other educational jurisdictions in Australian and

overseas. But Clark’s theory showed that the hard work and determination of a group of

passionate and committed individuals was equally critical in the school’s formalisation as an

official and authoritative organisation.

This study also contributed to what is known about innovative organisations. It confirmed

Clark’s theory that employees can feel strong emotional attachments and commitment to

special and unique organisations. It also showed that the VSL’s story can be understood as

one such Organizational Saga, where employees banded together to fight “against the odds”

for their beloved school. This thesis challenged the idea, however, that innovative

organisations must conform to the broader framework or regress to the categorical norm in

order to acquire legitimacy and acceptance in a broader system. The findings of this study

refuted this idea and suggested that it is indeed possible for special organisations to retain

their unique characteristics while being formalised and being accepted as a part of a broader

framework.

This study also extended the literature about heritage language subjects and the way the

managed to attach themselves to structures in the education system. It enhanced Mercurio and

Scarino’s ideas by providing several real life examples of the struggles that were involved in

the “grafting” process in Victoria. It also demonstrated the important role that the VSL and

the Education Department played in supporting and guiding heritage language subjects to

succeed in their goal of achieving legitimacy within the formal curriculum and within the

education system.

This study also makes a significant contribution to the literature about the overall picture of

language provision in Victoria. It has illuminated the relationship between the VSL and other

schools, such as the mainstream schools and the community language schools. There is a

dearth of scholarly material that addresses this relationship and this represented a significant

257


gap and a problem for this thesis. It was important to build an understanding of these

relationships because they are central to creating comprehensive knowledge about the entire

picture of language provision in Victoria and how the VSL’s role as a complementary

provider evolved.

This thesis showed that these relationships have been extremely important to the VSL

throughout its history. This study highlighted the VSL’s strength as a flexibility mechanism

to “take the slack” off the mainstream schools and to cater to the needs of students in a broad

range of situations. It also highlighted the fact that the other sectors have continually relied on

the VSL as a centre of expertise, to foster a workforce of qualified language teachers, to

develop curricula, to support the VCE accreditation process and to be the supporter of many

heritage language subjects that could not be developed elsewhere. This has affirmed the

VSL’s status as a leader within the overall field of language education in Victoria.

Regarding the literature about state schooling, this thesis has made an important contribution

by presenting the untold story of an important and unique institution which was up until now,

invisible and excluded from the “grand narrative” of the history of Australian schooling. The

VSL was not included in the official history of the Victorian education system that was

written in 1973.7 Similarly, the existence of the VSL’s Saturday language classes were either

completely absent from the official school histories that were written about the state schools

that “hosted” their classes8 or in one recent case, mentioned very briefly.9

The reason for this exclusion was likely because the VSL was not structured like any other

school and therefore could not “fit” neatly into the boundaries of any such study. In addition,

the VSL was only recognised as an official state school relatively recently. Regardless of the

reason, the VSL’s exclusion from the literature about Victorian state schooling has been

deplorable, given the large number of teachers and students who have made up the VSL

community, the large number of multilingual communities in both metropolitan and country

areas who have benefitted from the school’s existence, and the school’s remarkable

contribution to the fostering of multilingualism in the state of Victoria. Therefore it is highly

appropriate that this literature be enhanced to include the story of the VSL.

7 Education Department of Victoria & Blake, 1973. 8 Hoy 1961, Parker, The Making of Women, 2006, Parker, Girls, Empowerment and Education, 1996. 9 Rasmussen 2010.

258


8.5 Implications of this new knowledge

This study provides a direct benefit for the VSL school community as it assists in raising the

school’s profile and providing it with the recognition that it currently lacks. It also provides

an important documentation of the individual stories of many of the language communities

represented at the school. This study also highlights the innovative and pioneering work of

the officials in the Victorian Education Department who supported the school’s growth and

development. In terms of academic work, this thesis is relevant to scholars working in many

fields, such as linguistics, sociology, education and history. It is particularly pertinent to

many areas of language education, such as language policy. Internationally, this study is

useful for academics that are researching migrant language communities in other

transnational contexts.

This study has provided valuable insights into the ways that a sustained commitment to

language teaching on the margins can lead to legitimacy. It has shed light on one real life

example of the way that community language interests can successfully co-exist with

mainstream language education in a State system. It has also demonstrated a unique

framework in which educational structures can be flexible and can accommodate the

changing needs of a diverse range of groups without compromising the agenda of the

mainstream school system. This study supports the ideas suggested by the linguist Extra, that

the policies and practices of the VSL can indeed be upheld as a model to be adopted in the

European context.10

In an era of globalization when transnational movement is increasing, these concerns are

valid and contemporary. Furthermore, many scholars are studying the way that globalization

has led to a rise in the status of English, and the impact that this is having on the survival of

other languages. 11 This study seeks to explain the way that innovative curriculum

development in one state can play a key role in the maintenance of community languages in

the face of English domination.

10 Extra, Yaǧmur & Language Rich Europe 2012. 11 A Pauwels, ‘Managing and Maintaining Minority Languages in the Era of Globalization: Challenges for Europe and Australia’, in A Pauwels, J Winter and J Lo Bianco (eds), Maintaining Minority Languages in Transnational Contexts, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, UK and New York, US, 2007, pp. 1-9, p. 1.

259


8.6 Limitations

As stated earlier, very little has been written about the VSL up until now. Few have explained

how it came to be what it is today. For this reason, the two open-ended research questions

that guided this research were drawn up with the intention of establishing a greater general

understanding about the school’s role and about the way that it developed and evolved over

time. Due to the broad scope of this study, there was little opportunity to drill down deeper

into the many issues that are embedded within the VSL story. For example, it was not

possible to include a detailed account of each individual language community and the

experiences of their students and teachers. For the same reason, the complete story of each

individual centre could not be included.

Another limitation of this study came from the fact that some of the primary sources tended

to be patchy in certain periods. In particular, the middle period of the VSL’s history, namely

the 1950s and 1960s, represented a “dark ages” where there was a dearth of archived

Education Department records and therefore there were no documents containing student or

teacher names. This meant that few interview participants from this period could be found.

The absence of documents from this period is likely a result of the school’s unintegrated

status during that time, when officials perhaps considered the school’s documents

unimportant. This was also a period when the school experienced its first small burst of

growth in student numbers, and when it branched out to a second centre. Perhaps the

processes of managing the increasing number of documents was yet to be integrated, or they

were too widely dispersed among centres, resulting in their disposal or misplacement.

8.7 Areas for further research

As stated above, this study merely represents the beginning of scholarly knowledge about the

VSL. This thesis has analysed how the school came to be the authority that it is today, and the

role that it has come to assume. From here, there are many other relevant and significant

areas of research that ought to be explored. As a result of this study, scholars should conduct

further research into state specialist language schools and their role in the overall picture of

language education in this country. Other areas for research should include an analysis of

260


how the VSL has assisted its students in identity formation and how its programs facilitated

stronger connections with community or family. Other research could include studies of

individual language communities and how they grafted themselves on to the structures of the

VSL. Other areas of research could include the way that communities of practice formed

among teaching staff at the school, and the ways that new and emerging languages have

benefitted from the existing frameworks and the mentoring role of the VSL. Finally, it is

hoped that future studies will include research about the school from 1994 onwards,

something that could not be included here. It is anticipated that this thesis will provide many

of these future studies with a valuable starting point.

261

References

References Book Banks, J (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education, Routledge, London, 2010. Barnard, R & T Glynn (eds), Bilingual children's language and literacy development, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, Eng. Buffalo, N.Y., 2003. Campbell, J, Across the distance, 1909-2009: Celebrating 100 years of the Distance Education Centre Victoria, Distance Education Centre Victoria, Thornbury, 2009. Carr, EH, What is history? Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1990. Ceferin, A, Slovenian language in Australia: 25 Years of Slovenian language in Victorian schools: Institute of Slovenian Studies of Victoria 1977-2002, Institute for Slovenian Studies of Victoria, Clayton North, Victoria, 2003. Clyne, M, Community Languages: The Australian Experience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Melbourne, 1991. Clyne, M, Australia's Language Potential, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2005. Collins, J, Migrant Hands in a Distant Land: Australia’s Post-war Immigration, Pluto Press Australia, Leichhardt, NSW, 1988. COAG & Working Group on Asian Languages and Culture, Asian languages and Australia's economic future: a report prepared for the Council of Australian Governments on a proposed national Asian languages/studies strategy for Australian schools, Queensland Government Printer, Brisbane, 1994. Cooper, R, Language Planning and Social Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. Department of Education and Childhood Development The Victorian Government’s Vision for Languages Education, Department of Education and Childhood Development, Melbourne, Victoria, 2011. Department of Education and Childhood Development, Languages – expanding your world: Plan to implement The Victorian Government’s Vision for Languages Education 2013–2025, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Melbourne, Victoria, 2013. Retrieved 11 March 2015, http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/languagesvisionplan.pdf

262

References

Delpit, LD, Other people’s children: cultural conflict in the classroom, [Rev. ed.], New Press, New York, 2006, Department of Employment, Education and Training & J Dawkins, Australia's language: the Australian language and literacy policy, Australian Govt. Pub. Service, Canberra, 1991. Djite, P, From language policy to language planning: an overview of languages other than English in Australian education, The National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia, Deakin ACT, 1994. Easdown, G, Gualtiero Vaccari: A Man of Quality, Wilkinson Publishing, Melbourne, 2006. Education Department of Victoria & LJ Blake (ed.), Vision and Realisation: A Centenary History of State Education in Victoria, Education Dept. of Victoria, Melbourne, 1973. Extra, G, K Yaǧmur & Language Rich Europe, Trends in Policies and Practices in Multilingual Europe, Cambridge University Press, on behalf of the British Council, 2012. Retrieved 10 September 2013, http://www.language-rich.eu/fileadmin/content/pdf/LRE_English_version_final_01.pdf. Fischer, DH, Historians’ fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought, Harper & Row, New York, 1970. Frisch, M, A Shared Authority: Essays On The Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1990. Goodson, IF & CJ Anstead, The Life of a School: A Research Guide, Peter Lang, New York, 2012. Grassby, A, A multi-cultural society for the future: a paper prepared for the Cairnmillar Institute’s symposium “Strategy 2000: Australia for tomorrow”, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1973. Hannan, W, The Best of Times: The Story of the Great Secondary Schooling Expansion, Lexus Publishing, Northcote, Victoria, 2009. Hornberger, N (ed.), Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom up, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1997. Hoy, A, A city built to music: the history of University High School, Melbourne, 1910 to 1960, University High School, Melbourne, 1961. Jones, B, A Thinking Reed, Allen & Unwin, NSW, 2006. Jupp, J, From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian Immigration, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Victoria, 2002. Kaplan, R, R Baldauf, & EBSCOhost, Language Planning from Practice to Theory, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, [Eng.]; Philadelphia, 1997.

263

References

Kipp, S, M Clyne, & A Pauwels, Immigration and Australia's language resources, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1995. Kringas, P, and F Lewins, Why Ethnic Schools? Australian National University Press, Canberra, 1981. Leitner, G, Australia’s many voices: ethnic Englishes, indigenous and migrant languages: policy and education, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 2004. Liddicoat, A, Language-in-education policies: the discursive construction of intercultural relations, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2013. Liddicoat, AJ, A Scarino, T Jowan Curnow, M Kohler, A Scrimgeour, & A-M Morgan, An Investigation of the State and Nature of Languages in Australian Schools: Prepared by the Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education University of South Australia, Dept. of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra, A.C.T., 2007. Retrieved 19 July 2012, http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/82B80761-70BD-47A6-A85A-17F250E11CBA/22998/SNfinalreport3.pdf Lo Bianco, J, National Policy on Languages, Commonwealth Department of Education, Canberra, 1987. Lo Bianco, J, A Site for Debate, Negotiation and Contest of National Identity: Language Policy in Australia, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2003. Lo Bianco, J & R Aliani, Language Planning and Student Experiences: Intention, Rhetoric and Implementation, 2013. e-book, Retrieved 08 April 2014, <http://SWIN.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1317850>. Lo Bianco, J, Y Slaughter, & Australian Council for Educational Research, Second languages and Australian schooling, ACER, Camberwell, Victoria 2009. Lowenstein, W, Weevils in the Flour: an oral record of the 1930’s depression in Australia, Hyland House, Melbourne, 1978. Lowenstein, W, and M Loh, The Immigrants, Penguin Books, Melbourne, 1977. McCullagh, CB, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1984. Martin, J, The migrant presence: Australian responses, 1947-1977: research report for the National Population Inquiry, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1978. Mayne, AJC & Dante Alighieri Society (Australia), Melbourne Branch, Reluctant Italians? : One hundred years of the Dante Alighieri Society in Melbourne 1896-1996, Dante Alighieri Society, Melbourne, 1997. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools: National Plan for Languages

264

References

Education in Australian Schools 2005-2008, Department of Education and Children’s Services, Adelaide, 2005. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training, and Youth Affairs, Melbourne, 2008. Nicholls, G, Deported: a history of forced departures from Australia, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2007. Ozolins, U, The Politics of Language in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Melbourne, 1993. Parker, P, The making of women: a history of MacRobertson Girls’ High School, Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne, 2006. Potter, C and R Romano, Doing Recent History: On Privacy, Copyright, Video Games, Institutional Review Boards, Activist Scholarship, and History That Talks Back, University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia, 2012. Proctor, H and C Campbell, A History of Australian Schooling, Allen & Unwin, New South Wales, 2014. Rasmussen, C, ‘A whole new world’ : 100 years of education at University High School, Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne, Victoria, 2010. Renier, G, History, its purpose and method Allen & Unwin, London, 1950. Romaine, S, Language in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 1991. Rowe, KJ & Victoria. Schools Division, LOTE services to students : languages other than English at the Correspondence School and the Saturday School of Modern Languages, Ministry of Education (Schools Division), Melbourne, 1986. Selleck, R, Frank Tate: a biography, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria, 1982. Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, Report on a national language policy, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1984. Stephens, L, Probing the Past: A Guide to the Study and Teaching of History, Allyn and Bacon, Longwood Division, Boston, Massachusetts, 1974. Teese, R and J Polesol, Undemocratic schooling: equity and quality in mass secondary education in Australia, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, 2003. Theobald, M, Ruyton Remembers 1878-1978, The Hawthorn Press, Melbourne, 1978. Yow, VR, Recording oral history: a guide for the humanities and social sciences, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, 2005.

265

References

Book section Barcan, A, ‘The Transition in Australian Education 1939-67’, in J Cleverley J and J Lawry (eds), Australian Education in the Twentieth Century: Studies in the Development of State Education, Longman, Camberwell, Victoria, 1972, pp. 171-204. Burnaby, B, ‘Language policies in Canada’, in M Herriman & B Burnaby (eds), Language Policies in English Dominant Countries, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 1996, pp. 159-219. Cameron, R, ‘The Activities Which the Curriculum Entails’ in PR Cole & Australian Council for Educational Research (eds), The Education of the adolescent in Australia, Melbourne University Press in association with Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1935, pp. 201-227. Campbell, C, ‘The Social Origins of Australian State High Schools: An Historiographical Review’, in C Campbell, C Hooper and M Fearnley-Sander, Toward the State High School in Australia: Social Histories of State Secondary Schooling in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania 1850–1925, ANZHES, Sydney, 1990, pp. 9-28. Christesen, N, ‘A Russian migrant’, in P Grimshaw and L Strahan (eds), The half-open door: Sixteen modern Australian women look at professional life and achievement, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, 1982, pp. 54-77. Clyne, M, ‘Empowerment through the community language - a challenge’, in M Pütz, JA Fishman and J Neff-Van Aertselaer (eds), Along the Routes to Power: Explorations of Empowerment Through Language, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 2006. pp. 107- 126. Clyne, M, ‘Three is too many in Australia’, in C Hélot and M Ó Laoire (eds), Language Policy for the Multilingual Classroom: Pedagogy of the Possible, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, UK, 2011, pp. 174-187. Clyne, M & S Fernandez, ‘Community language learning in Australia’, in Encyclopedia of language and education, (2nd Edition, Volume 4: Second and foreign language education), Springer Science + Business Media LLC., 2008, pp.169–181. Cruikshank, K, ‘Exploring the -lingual Between Bi and Mono: Young People and Their Languages in an Australian Context’, in J Conteh and G Meier (eds), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges, Multilingual Matters, Bristol and Buffalo, 2014, pp. 41-63. Czarniawska, B, ‘Narrative Inquiry in and About Organizations’, in DJ Clandinin (ed.), Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, California, 2007, pp. 383-405. Darling, J, ‘Current Problems in Secondary Education’, in PR Cole & Australian Council for Educational Research (eds), The Education of the adolescent in Australia, Melbourne University Press in association with Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1935, pp. 320–339.

266

References

Extra, G, ‘From minority programmes to multilingual education’, in P Auer and L Wei (eds), Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, vol. 5, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2007, pp. 175-206. Fettes, M, ‘Language planning and education’, in R Wodak & D Corson (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Language Policy and Political Issues in Education Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1997, pp. 13-22. Hamilton, P, ‘The knife edge: debates about memory and history’, in K Darian-Smith and P Hamilton (eds), Memory and History in Twentieth Century Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1994, pp. 9-32. Hornberger, N, ‘Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning’, in T Ricento (ed.), Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, Blackwell Pub, Malden, MA, 2006, pp. 24-41. Jupp, J, ‘A Pragmatic Response to a Novel Situation: Australian Multiculturalism’, in G Levey (ed.), Political theory and Australian multiculturalism, Berghahn Books, New York, Oxford, 2008, pp. 225-241 Jupp, J & M Clyne, ‘Introduction: Multiculturalism and integration: A Harmonious Relationship’, in M Clyne M and J Jupp (eds), Multiculturalism and integration: A Harmonious Relationship, ANU ePress, Canberra, 2011, pp. xiii-xxiii. Kaplan, RB, ‘Macro Language Planning’, in E Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, vol. 2, Routledge, New York, NY, 2011, pp. 924-935. Klarberg, F, A Di Benedetto, and M Takeuchi, ‘New University Entry Subjects in Victoria 1921 – 36: The Accreditation of Hebrew, Italian and Japanese’, in H Borland (ed.), Communication & Identity: Local, Regional, Global: Selected papers from the 1993 National Conference of the Australian Communication Association, Australian and New Zealand Communication Association, ACT, 1994, pp. 275 – 288. Lawn, M, and I Grosvenor, ‘Introduction. The Materiality of Schooling’, in M Lawn and I Grosvenor, Materialities of schooling: design, technology, objects, routines, Symposium Books, Oxford, 2005, pp. 7-18. Lo Bianco, J, ‘Language Policy and Education in Australia’, in N Hornberger (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, vol. 4, Springer, 2008, pp. 343-353. Lo Bianco, J, ‘Language Policy: At the Centre and the Margins of Australian Multiculturalism’, in A Jakubowicz and C Ho (eds), For those who've come across the seas ... Australian multicultural theory, policy and practice, Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne, 2013, pp. 198-209. McMillan J and S Schumacher, ‘Concept Analysis and Historical Research’, in J McMillan and S Schumacher, Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction, 5th ed, Longman, New York, 2001, pp. 498-524.

267

References

Melvin, B, ‘Rivers, Wilga Marie’, in M Byram (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, Routledge, London and New York, 2000, pp. 520-521. Meyer, J, ‘Levels of the Educational System and Schooling Effects’, in D Windham and C Bidwell, Issues in Macroanalysis, Ballinger Pub. Co, Cambridge, MA, 1980, pp. 15-63. Meyer J and B Rowan, ‘The Structure of Educational Organizations’, in Marshall Meyer and Associates, Environments and Organizations: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1978, pp. 78-109. Musgrove, F, ‘The contribution of sociology to the study of the curriculum’, in JF Kerr (ed.), Changing the Curriculum, University of London Press, London, 1968, pp. 96-109. Nagata, Y, ‘Naive Patriotism: the internment of Moshi Inagaki in Australia during the Second World War’, in J Beaumont, I Martinuzzi O'Brien and M Trinca (eds), Under Suspicion: Citizenship and Internment in Australia during the Second World War, National Museum of Australia Press, Canberra, 2008, pp. 112-124. Nekvapil, J, ‘The History and Theory of Language Planning’, in E Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, vol. 2, Routledge, New York, NY, 2011, pp. 871-887. Pauwels, A, ‘Managing and Maintaining Minority Languages in the Era of Globalization: Challenges for Europe and Australia’, in A Pauwels, J Winter and J Lo Bianco (eds), Maintaining Minority Languages in Transnational Contexts, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, UK and New York, US, 2007, pp. 1-9. Peucker, M, and S Akbarzadeh, ‘Managing Religious Diversity and Promoting Active Citizenship: Muslims in Australia, Britain and Germany’, in F Mansouri and E Boulou, Global perspectives on the politics of multiculturalism in the 21st century: a case study analysis, Routledge, London, 2014, pp. 141-160. Portelli, A, ‘Oral History: A Collaborative Method of (Auto) Biography Interview’ in S Hesse-Biber & P Leavy, The practice of qualitative research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, 2006, pp. 149-194. Reid, J, 'The rebirth of Wergaia: a collaborative effort', in J Hobson, K Lowe, S Poetsch and M Walsh (eds), Re-Awakening Languages: Theory and Practice in the Revitalisation of Australia's Indigenous Languages, Sydney University Press, Sydney, New South Wales, 2010, pp. 240-252. Reid, W, ‘Curricular Topics As Institutional Categories: Implications for Theory and Research in the History and Sociology of School Subjects’, in S Ball and I Goodson, Defining the Curriculum: Histories and Ethnographies, Routledge, London, 2012, pp. 67-76. Ricento, T, ‘Language policy: Theory and Practice - An Introduction’, in T Ricento (ed.), Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, Blackwell Pub, Malden, MA, 2006, pp. 10-23.

268

References

Rubenstein, C, ‘Kennett’s multicultural Victoria’ in B Costar and N Economou (eds), The Kennett Revolution: Victorian Politics in the 1990s, UNSW Press, Sydney, 1999, pp. 250-260, p. 256. Seitz, J, ‘Types of Curricula of Secondary Schools’, in PR Cole & Australian Council for Educational Research (eds), The Education of the adolescent in Australia, Melbourne University Press in association with Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1935, pp. 100-200. Selleck, R, ‘Foreword’, in M Theobald, Ruyton Remembers 1878-1978, The Hawthorn Press, Melbourne, 1978. Spaull, A, ‘The end of the state school system? Education and the Kennett government’, in B Costar and N Economou (eds), The Kennett Revolution: Victorian Politics in the 1990s, UNSW Press, Sydney, 1999, pp. 214-224. Stojanovski, S, F Hollingsworth & J Saynor-Locke, ‘Online German for Secondary School Students’, in U Felix (ed.), Beyond Babel: Language Learning Online, Language Australia Ltd, Melbourne, 2001, pp. 121-136. Suddaby, R, and R Greenwood, ‘Methodological Issues in Researching Institutional Change’, in D Buchanan and A Bryman, The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage Publications, inc, London, 2009, pp. 176-195. Templeton, J, ‘Italians in Australia’, in G Davison, S Macintyre & J Hirst, The Oxford companion to Australian history, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, 1998, p. 354. Warhurst, J, ‘The growth lobby and its opponents: business, unions, environmentalists and other interest groups’ in J Jupp and M Kabala (eds), The Politics of Australian Immigration, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1993, pp. 181 - 203. Wilson, S, ‘Japanese-Australian Relations’, in G Davison, S Macintyre & J Hirst, The Oxford companion to Australian history, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, 1998, pp. 355-357. Winter, J, & A Pauwels, ‘Language Maintenance and the Second Generation: Policies and Practices’, in A Pauwels, J Winter & J Lo Bianco, Maintaining minority languages in transnational contexts, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2007, pp. 180 – 200. Zainu'ddin, AGT, ‘Rose Inagaki: ‘Is It a Crime to Marry a Foreigner?”, in M Lake and F Kelly (eds), Double Time: Women in Victoria - 150 Years, Penguin Books, Ringwood, Victoria, 1985, pp. 335-343.

269

References

Journal article Bailyn, B, ‘The Challenge of Modern Historiography’, The American Historical Review, vol. 87, no. 1, 1982, pp. 1-24. Baldauf, RB, ‘Unplanned Language Policy and Planning’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 14, 1993/1994, pp. 82-89. Baldauf, RB, ‘Rearticulating the Case for Micro Language Planning in a Language Ecology Context’, Current Issues in Language Planning, vol. 7, no. 2-3, 2006, pp. 147-170. Barcan, A, ‘Latin and Greek in Australian Schools’, History of Education Review, vol. 22, no. 1, 1993, pp. 32-46 Beykont, ZF, ‘“We should keep what makes us different”: youth reflections on Turkish maintenance in Australia’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 2010, no. 206, 2010, pp. 93-107. Beykont, ZF, ‘“Why didn't they teach us any of this before?” Youth Appraisal of Turkish Provision in Victoria’, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 35, no. 2, 2012, pp. 156-169. Beykont, ZF, ‘Building a well prepared languages teaching force: Turkish teacher perspectives’, Babel, vol. 47, no. 3, 2013, pp. 16-27. Blair, M, ‘The VSL: Not “Just a Little Language School”, Prime Focus, vol. 31, October 2002, pp. 32-33. Burstyn, JN, ‘Narrative versus theoretical approaches: a dilemma for historians of women’, History of Education Review, vol. 19, no. 2, 1990, pp. 1-7. Campbell, F, ‘Latin and the Élite tradition in Education’, The British Journal of Sociology, vol 19, no. 3, 1968, pp. 308 - 325. Cathie, I, ‘A new era for the Saturday School’, Ailanto, Journal of the Victorian School of Languages, no. 1, 1988, pp. 21-23. Ceferin, S, ‘Single language association feature article: Slovenian’, Languages Victoria, vol. 12, no. 1, July 2008, pp. 40-42. Clark, B, ‘The Organizational Saga in Higher Education’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 2, June 1972, pp. 178-184. Clyne, M, ‘Migrant Languages in Schools’, Babel, issue 27, 1964, pp. 11–13. Clyne, M & S Kipp, ‘Australia's community languages’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 180, issue 1, 2006, pp. 7–21.

270

References

Creese, A, ‘Building on Young People's Linguistic and Cultural Continuity: Complementary Schools in the United Kingdom’, Theory Into Practice, vol. 48, no. 4, 2009, pp. 267-273. Creese, A, and P Martin, ‘Interaction in Complementary School Contexts: Developing Identities of Choice – An Introduction’, Language and Education, vol. 20 issue 1, 2006, pp. 1-4. Cutler, W, ‘Oral History: Its Nature and Uses for Educational History’, History of Education Quarterly, vol. 11 no. 2, 1971, pp. 184-194. Eick, C, ‘Oral Histories of Education and the Relevance of Theory- Claiming New Spaces in a Post-Revisionist Era’, History of Education Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, 2011, pp. 160-183. Elder, C, ‘Outing the Native Speaker: The Problem of Diverse Learner Backgrounds in 'Foreign' Language Classrooms - An Australian Case Study’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, vol. 13, no. 1, 2000, pp. 86-108. Fishman, J, “English only’: its ghosts, myths, and dangers’, International Journal Of The Sociology Of Language, vol. 74, November 1988, pp. 125-140. Fishman, J & V Nahirny, ‘The ethnic group school and mother tongue maintenance in the United States’, Sociology of Education, vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 1964, pp. 306-317. Grigg, S, ‘Archival Practice and the Foundations of Historical Method’, The Journal of American History, vol. 78, no. 1, 1991, pp. 228-239. Hatoss, A, ‘Community-Level Approaches in Language Planning: The Case of Hungarian in Australia’, Current Issues in Language Planning, vol. 7, no. 2-3, 2006, pp. 287-306. Hornberger, N, ‘Heritage/Community Language Education: US and Australian Perspectives’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 8, no. 2-3, 2005, pp. 101-108. Hornberger, N, ‘Voice and Biliteracy in Indigenous Language Revitalization: Contentious Educational Practices in Quechua, Guarani, and Maori Contexts’, Journal of Language, Identity and Education, vol. 5 no. 4, 2006, pp. 277-292. Ianziti, G, ‘Historiography and its Discontents: The Windschuttle Gambit’, History Australia, vol. 2, no. 2, 2005, pp. 43-1-43-10. Ingram, D, ‘Language-in-Education Planning’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 10, 1989, pp 53-78. Janik, J, ‘Polish Language Maintenance of the Polish Students at the Princes Hill Saturday School in Melbourne’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 17, no. 1, 1996, pp. 3-15. Kawai R, S Serriere & D Mitra, ‘Contested Spaces of a “Failing” Elementary School’, Theory & Research in Social Education, vol. 42, issue 4, 2014, pp. 486-515.

271

References

Klarberg, F, ‘Italian in Australia Accreditation as a Public Examination Subject 1920-1935’, Convivio, vol. 2, no. 2, October 1996, pp. 154-163. Klarberg, F, ‘Asian languages in Australia: the accreditation of Japanese and Malay as public examination subjects 1918–41’, Asian Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 3, 1997, pp. 79-90. Leuner, B, ‘Patterns of language use: Polish migrants from the 1980s and their children in Melbourne’, Babel, vol. 44, no. 3, May 2010, pp. 26-37. Li, W, ‘Complementary Schools, Past, Present and Future’, Language and Education, vol. 20, issue 1, 2006, pp. 76-83. McCullagh, CB, ‘Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation’, History and Theory, vol. 39, no. 1, 2000, pp. 39-66. Mascitelli, B and F Merlino, ‘By accident or design? The origins of the Victorian School of Languages’, Babel, vol. 46 no. 2/3, September 2011, pp. 40-47. May, J and H Proctor, ‘Being Special: memories of the Australian public high school, 1920s-1950s’, History of Education Review, vol. 42, no. 1, 2013, pp. 55 – 68. Mercurio, A & A Scarino, ‘Heritage Languages at Upper Secondary Level in South Australia: A Struggle for Legitimacy’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 8, no. 2-3, 2005, pp. 145-159. Merlino, F, ‘The Victorian School of Languages 1935-1988: A brief history’, in Ailanto, Journal of the Victorian School of Languages, no. 1, 1988, pp. 9-20. Meyer, J and B Rowan, ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, no. 2, Sep. 1977, pp. 340-363. Milligan, JD ‘The Treatment of an Historical Source’, History and Theory, vol. 18, no. 2, 1979, pp. 177-196. Mirza, H, and D Reay, ‘Spaces and Places of Black Educational Desire: Rethinking Black Supplementary Schools as a New Social Movement’, Sociology, vol. 34 no. 3, 2000, pp. 521-544. Moore, H, ‘Telling the history of the 1991 Australian language and literacy policy’, TESOL in Context, vol. 5, no. 1, June 1995, pp. 6-20. Myers, K & I Grosvenor, ‘Exploring supplementary education: margins, theories and methods’, History of Education, vol. 40, no. 4, 2011, pp. 501-520. Norst, M, ‘Ethnic schools: What they are and what they would like to be’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 3, issue 1, 1982, pp. 6-16. Papademetre, L & S Routoulas, ‘Social, Political, Educational, Linguistic and Cultural (Dis)Incentives for Languages Education in Australia’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 22, no. 2, 2001, pp. 134-151.

272

References

Petrovska, P, ‘Mixed Age & Mixed Ability Classes: A Creative Approach’, Babel, vol. 31 no. 3, October – December 2006, pp. 24-26. Robyns, M, ‘The Archivist as Educator: Integrating Critical Thinking Skills into Historical Research Methods Instruction’, The American Archivist, vol. 64, Fall/Winter 2001, pp. 363–384. Rowe, K and L Martin, ‘Languages Other Than English: A Survey of Student Needs’, Theory, structure and action in education, November 1986, pp. 2-20. Slaughter, Y & J Hajek, ‘Community languages and LOTE provision in Victorian primary schools: mix or match?’ Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 30, no. 1, 2007, pp. 0.71 - 07.22. Smolicz, JJ & MJ Secombe, ‘Assimilation or pluralism? Changing policies for minority languages education in Australia’, Language Policy, vol. 2, no. 1, 2003, pp. 3-25. Stone, L, ‘The Revival of Narrative- Reflections on a New Old History’, Past & Present, no. 85, 1979, pp. 3-24. Theobald, M, ‘Problems in Writing School Histories’, History of Education Review, vol. 6, no. 1, 1977, pp. 22-28. Trimingham Jack, C, ‘School History: Constructing the Lived Experience’, History of Education Review, vol. 26, no. 1, 1997, pp. 42–55. Willoughby, L, ‘Heritage LOTEs at VCE level: student perspectives on current programs’, Monash University Linguistics Papers, vol. 5, no. 1, 2006, pp. 3-15. Zainu’ddin, AGT, ‘The Teaching of Japanese at Melbourne University 1919-1941’, History of Education Review, vol. 17 no. 2, 1988, pp. 46-62.

273

References

Annual Education Department reports Education Department, Report of the Minister of Public Instruction for the Year 1934 – 1935, Department of Public Instruction, Melbourne, 1936. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Public Instruction for the Year 1936 – 1937, Department of Public Instruction, Melbourne, 1938. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Public Instruction for the Year 1939 – 1940, Department of Public Instruction, Melbourne, 1941. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Public Instruction for the Year 1946 – 1947, Department of Public Instruction, Melbourne, 1948. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1954 – 1955, Department of Education, Melbourne, 1956. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1962 – 1963, Department of Education, Melbourne, 1964. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1963 – 1964, Department of Education, Melbourne, 1965. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1964 – 1965, Department of Education, Melbourne, 1966. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1966 – 1967, Education Department, Melbourne, 1968. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1968 – 1969, Education Department, Melbourne, 1970. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1971 – 1972, Education Department, Melbourne, 1972. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education for the Year 1974 – 1975, Education Department, Melbourne, 1976. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Special Education for the Year 1977 – 1978, Education Department, Melbourne, 1978. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Special Education for the Year 1978 – 1979, Education Department, Melbourne, 1980. Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Special Education for the Year 1979 – 1980, Education Department, Melbourne, 1981.

274

References

Education Department, Report of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Special Education for the Year 1980 – 1981, Education Department, Melbourne, 1982. Education Department, Education Department of Victoria Annual Report 1984 – 85, Education Department, Melbourne, 1985. Ministry of Education Victoria, Education Department of Victoria Annual Report 1985 – 86, Education Department, Melbourne, 1986. Ministry of Education Victoria, Ministry of Education Victoria, Annual Report 1986 – 87, Education Department, Melbourne, 1987. Ministry of Education Victoria, Ministry of Education Victoria, Annual Report 1987 – 88, Education Department, Melbourne, 1988. Ministry of Education Victoria, Ministry of Education Victoria, Annual Report 1988 – 89, Education Department, Melbourne, 1989. Office of Schools Administration, Victoria, Annual report / Office of Schools Administration, Ministry of Education, Victoria 1990-1991, Education Department, Melbourne, 1991. Directorate of School Education, Victoria Department of Education Annual Report 1992-1993, Education Department, Melbourne, 1993. Directorate of School Education, Victoria Department of Education Annual Report 1993-1994, Education Department, Melbourne, 1994. Directorate of School Education, Victoria, Department of Education Annual Report 1994-1995, Education Department, Melbourne, 1995. Annual reports about languages in Victorian government schools Department of School Education, Victoria, Languages other than English in government schools 1991, Department of School Education, Victoria, 1992. Department of School Education, Victoria Languages other than English in government schools 1993, Department of School Education, Victoria, 1994. Directorate of School Education Languages other than English in government schools 1994, Quality Programs Division, Directorate of School Education, Victoria, 1995. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Languages in Victorian government schools 2010, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Melbourne, 2011.

275

References

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Languages in Victorian Government Schools 2011, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Melbourne, 2012. Department of Education and Training Languages Provision in Victorian Government Schools, 2014 Department of Education and Training, Melbourne, 2015. Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 25 June 1935. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 15 June 1945. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 24 March 1950. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 24 February 1965. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 27 January 1966. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 29 January 1971. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 29 January 1972. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 23 June 1972. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 31 January 1973. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 24 January 1974. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 7 November 1975. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 30 January 1976.

276

References

Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 5 November 1976. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 27 January 1977. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 26 January 1979. Education Department, Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 9 February 1984. Education Department Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 10 September 1987. Education Department Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 5 November 1987. Education Department Education Gazette and Teachers’ Aid, Department of Education, Melbourne, Victoria, 14 November 1989. Schools Bulletin Office of Schools Administration Victoria, Schools Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 5, 25 March 1991, Ministry of Education, Office of Schools Administration, Melbourne, Victoria. Office of Schools Administration Victoria, Schools Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 11, 24 June 1991, Ministry of Education, Office of Schools Administration, Melbourne, Victoria. Office of Schools Administration Victoria, Schools Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 12, 22 July 1991, Ministry of Education, Office of Schools Administration, Melbourne, Victoria. Office of Schools Administration Victoria, Schools Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 14, 19 August 1991, Ministry of Education, Office of Schools Administration, Melbourne, Victoria. Department of School Education Victoria, Schools Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 13, 20 July 1992, Ministry of Education, Office of Schools Administration, Melbourne, Victoria.

Department of School Education Victoria, Schools Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 18, 5 October 1992, Ministry of Education, Office of Schools Administration, Melbourne, Victoria.

277

References

Records of parliamentary debates Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, ‘House of Representatives: Petitions: Saturday School of Modern Languages’, 7 March 1978. Retrieved 25 June 2014, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/hansard80/hansardr80/1978-03-07/0005/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf Edmunds, C, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 23 April 1974, vol. 317, p. 4698. Fordham, R, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 27 October 1977, vol. 334, p. 10874. Fordham, R, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 21 April 1983, vol. 369, p. 4023. Hogg, C, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 23 March 1988, vol. 390, Council Minister of Education, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 8 March 1977, vol. 330, p. 6072. Rossiter, J, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 23 October 1969, vol. 296, p. 1147. Thompson, L, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 30 March 1971, vol. 302, p. 4397-4398. Thompson, L, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 12 November 1974, vol. 319, p. 2005. Thompson, L, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 1 October 1975, vol. 323, p. 7038. Conference papers Avara, H & B Mascitelli, ‘Languages in Australia – Future and Survival in a Mono-lingual Context: A Survey of the Victorian School of Languages (VSL)’, conference paper, 2011. Abiuso, G and E Kleinhenz, ‘The Victorian School of Languages and Ethnic Communities 1935 – 1988’, Partnerships in Education, 1989. Abiuso, G, ‘The Saturday School of Modern Languages: Its role in the teaching of ethnic languages in Victoria’, paper presented at the Australian Federation of Modern Language teachers’ Associations Fourth Biennial Conference, Perth, 3-6 September 1982

278

References

Theses Forster, B, The politics of languages other than English as a curriculum area in Victorian state schools, 1950-1987, PhD thesis, Faculty of Education, Monash University, 1992. Jaber, L, A reflective inquiry into the teaching of post-primary Arabic in Australia, Master of Education thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne, 1997. Panousieris, G, A critical analysis of the review of the Victorian School of Languages 1991, Master of Education thesis, Centre for Comparative and Policy Studies in Education, La Trobe University, 1993. Parker, P, Girls, Empowerment and Education: A History of The Mac.Robertson Girls’ High School 1905–2005, PhD thesis, School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning Portfolio, RMIT University, 1996. Slaughter, Y, The Study of Asian Languages in Two Australian States: Considerations for Language-in-Education Policy and Planning, PhD thesis, School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne, 2007. Unpublished works Beykont, ZF, ‘Substantiating Success and Improving Quality in VSL’s Secondary Turkish Program: Teacher Perspectives’, unpublished report, 2006. Beykont, ZF, ‘Substantiating Success and Improving Quality in VSL’s Secondary Turkish Program: Youth Perspectives’, unpublished report, 2008. Kleinhenz, E, ‘The Victorian School of Languages 1935-1989’, unpublished Master of Education Essay, Education, Monash University, 1989.

279

References

Web items ACARA, ‘The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages’, 2011. Retrieved 17 July 2012, http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Languages_Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum.pdf ACARA, ‘The Australian Curriculum, Languages’, 2013, Retrieved 3 December 2015, http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Curriculum_Languages_Info_sheet_Nov_2013.pdf. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Australian Census of Population and Housing 2011’, 2013. Retrieved 30 May 2013, http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data?opendocument#from-banner=LN. Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee, ‘The Macedonian (SLAVONIC) Language Case’, 2014, Retrieved 8 January 2015, http://macedonianhr.org.au/contents/106. Alexander F, ‘Murdoch, Sir Walter Logie (1874–1970)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published first in hardcopy 1986. Retrieved 14 July 2015, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/murdoch-sir-walter-logie-7698/text13477 Community Languages Australia (CLA) ‘About Us’, 2012. Retrieved 18 July 2012, http://www.communitylanguagesaustralia.org.au/AboutUs.php#Background Department of Education and Training, ‘Grants. DEECD Community Languages Schools - Per capita grants’, 2015. Retrieved 22 January 2015, http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/languages/pages/clsschools.aspx Diversity Health Institute, ‘Demographic Data’, NSW Government, 2012. Retrieved 10 September 2013, http://www.dhi.health.nsw.gov.au/DHI-Home/Demographic-Data/default.aspx Fullarton, S & J Ainley, ‘Subject choice by students in year 12 in Australian secondary Schools’, LSAY Research Reports. Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth research report, no.15, 2000. Retrieved 16 August 2012, http://research.acer.edu.au/lsay_research/13 Government of Victoria, ‘Series VPRS 892 Special Case Files: About this series’, 2005. Retrieved 1 March 2013, http://www.access.prov.vic.gov.au/public/component/daPublicBaseContainer?component=daViewSeries&entityId=892. Henderson, M, ‘Byrne, Helen Elizabeth’, College Roll, Royal Australasian College of Practitioners, 2009. Retrieved 2 June 2014, https://www.racp.edu.au/page/library/college-roll/college-roll-detail&id=2

280

References

Home, RW, ‘Martin, Sir Leslie Harold (1900–1983)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published in hardcopy 2012. Retrieved 9 May 2014, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/martin-sir-leslie-harold-14939/text26128. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, ‘Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) No: H97/189, Between: Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee (Inc), and State of Victoria’, 2000. Retrieved 8 January 2015, http://macedonianhr.org.au/images/stories/pdf/hreoc.pdf. Martin, J, ‘Lodewyckx, Augustin (1876–1964)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published in hardcopy 1986. Retrieved 8 May 2014, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lodewyckx-augustin-7220/text12497. Oliver, P, ‘Japanese’, eMelbourne: The city past and present, published by School of Historical Studies, Department of History, The University of Melbourne, 2008. Retrieved 27 May 2014, http://www.emelbourne.net.au/biogs/EM00771b.htm. Reserve Bank of Australia, ‘The Reserve Bank and Reform of the Currency: 1960–1988’, 2014. Retrieved 12 November 2014, http://www.rba.gov.au/Museum/Displays/1960_1988_rba_and_reform_of_the_currency/decimal_currency.html Spaull, A, ‘Seitz, John Arnold (1883–1963)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published in hardcopy 1988. Retrieved 26 May 2014, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/seitz-john-arnold-8382/text14715. Shedden, F Advisory War Council Minutes (Original Set) Volume 1. Meetings 29 Oct 1940 to 14 Feb 1941. Minute Nos 1 to 149B, p. 9-10, available at John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library. Retrieved 28 May 2014, http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=98697&local_base=ERA01JCPML Victoria. Office of Premier and Cabinet and Office of Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, ‘Victoria's diverse population : 2011 census’, 2013. Retrieved 10 September 2013, http://www.multicultural.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/2013/pop_diversity_vic_brochure_2013_web.pdf VCAA, ‘CCAFL Languages: Updated sections for Victorian Certificate of Education Study Designs’, 2013. Retrieved 29 March 2014, http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/CCAFL-SD-template.doc. VCAA, ‘The Victorian Curriculum Foundation–10’, 2014. Retrieved 3 December 2015, http://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/overview/about.

281

References

Speech D Howes, speech at VSL VCE Top Scorer Awards, Kathleen Fitzpatrick Theatre, The University of Melbourne, 3 March 2014. Other items Abiuso, G, ‘Application for the position of Principal at the Victorian School of Languages’, donated by Mr. G.Abiuso Guest, D, Title of memo: S086-2012 Change of Nomenclature from LOTE to Languages and ESL to English as an Additional Language (EAL), Department of Education and early Childhood Development, Victoria, memo dated 6 March 2012. ‘Review of the Saturday School of Modern Languages’, October 1987, donated by Mrs Fran Reddan ‘Miss Ryan’, Echoes. The Magazine of the Coburg High School, Vol XIII, Dec 1958, p. 7. MLTAV, ‘Proposed Revision of the MLTAV’s Statement of Policy’, ML Newsletter 64, April 1977, pp. 9-10. Saturday School of Modern Languages Saturday School of Modern Languages Handbook ’84, 1984. VSL, Victorian School of Languages Family and Staff Bulletin no. 2, May 2005, p. 3. VSL, ‘Minute Book – SSML Advisory Council’, minutes of Advisory School Council Meeting 13 August 1983, donated by Mr. G. Abiuso. VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages, School Council Principal’s Report, 10 April 1991’, donated by Mr A. Akgüner. VSTA, ‘VSTA response on the draft report of the review of the Victorian School of Languages’, 6 August 1991, p. 1, donated by Mrs Fran Reddan.

282

References

Media items Anderson, K and J Lo Bianco, ‘The language education debate: Speak, and ye shall find knowledge’, East Asia Forum, 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/08/the-language-education-debate-speak-and-ye-shall-find-knowledge/. Deakin, H, ‘Virgil Joseph Cain’, Obituary, The Age, 20 September 2001. Dunn, A, ‘Schools join forces to rescue languages’, The Age, 5 February 2012. Retrieved 10 October 2013, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/schools-join-forces-to-rescue-languages-20120204-1qyzl.html#ixzz1lS69ESV3. Sussex, R & M Clyne, ‘2020 Languages 2020 Future’, The Australian, 1 December 2010, Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, EBSCO host, Retrieved 22 February 2012. The Age, 5 February 1988, p. 2. Historical newspaper articles The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 -) ‘Among the schools. Mac.Robertson Girls’ High School – Teaching of Japanese’, 12 February 1935, p. 6. ‘Girls prefer Japanese!’ 15 February 1937, p. 10. The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957) ‘Home from Italy. Miss Helen Byrne’, 4 May 1934, p 10. ‘Study of Italian should be encouraged in Victoria: Subject for Schools: Resolution at Meeting’, 10 May 1935, p. 10. ‘Study of languages: Italian and Japanese: Large enrolments reported’, 7 August 1935, p. 8 ‘Personal’, 3 April 1936, p. 5. 'Saturday Language Classes’, 10 February 1937, p. 8 ‘Women teachers to visit Japan’, 25 October 1938, p. 4. ‘1938 University examination results’, 16 February 1939, p. 9.

283

References

‘Dutch classes for secondary schools’, 1 April 1944, p. 12. The Cessnock Eagle and South Maitland Recorder (NSW : 1913 - 1954) ‘Learning Italian’, 14 February 1941, p. 8. Chronicle (Adelaide, SA : 1895 - 1954) ‘Interesting People in all parts of Australia’, 22 August 1935, p. 15. The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954) ‘Australian teachers charmed by Japan’, 1 February 1939, p. 3. Il Giornale Italiano (Sydney, NSW : 1932 - 1940) ‘La “Dante” per la Lingua Italiana’, 5 June 1935, p. 3. The Herald (Melbourne, Vic. : 1840 – 1990) ‘Nippon comes to Melbourne’, 25 July 1936, p. 29. ‘Japanese on Saturdays’, 18 July 1959, p. 4. The Horsham Times (Vic. : 1882 - 1954) ‘Public apathetic towards education’, 18 October 1946, p. 2. The Journal (Dandenong, Vic.: 1865 - ) Smithers, P ‘Tolerance through languages’, 7 May 1984, p. 2. Regional Progress (Malvern, Vic. : 1984 - 1988) ‘Course in Pushto’, 25 September 1985, p. 17. The Sun (Melbourne, Vic.: 1922 – 1990) ‘School for languages’, 25 February 1964, p. 17.

284

References

The Telegraph (Brisbane, Qld. : 1872 - 1947) ‘Queensland Teachers in Japan Treated Like Royalty’, 15 March 1939, p. 13. The West Australian (Perth, WA : 1879 - 1954) ‘Teachers’ tour of Japan. Five to leave in January’, 24 October 1938, p. 14. Materials found in the Victorian Archives at Public Records Office Victoria (PROV) VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1935-1945 Anzilotti E, 20 June 1935. Brookes L, 8 November 1944.

Cain V, 4 June 1941. Cain V, 4 February 1943.

CISS, 31 May 1935. CISS, 25 February 1937.

Education Department, 13 May 1935. Education Department, 31 May 1935.

Education Department, 25 June 1935. Education Department, 26 November 1935.

Education Department, 1 March 1940. Education Department, March 1942.

Education Department, 21 January 1944. Education Department, 9 February 1945.

Garland R, 17 April 1945. Inagaki M, 28 December 1937.

Lodewyckx A, 6 January 1944. MacNeece J, 15 November 1943.

Ottaway L, 2 February 1937. Ottaway L, 22 February 1937.

Ottaway L, 20 January 1938. Ottaway L, 14 February 1938.

Ottaway L, 17 April 1939. Ottaway L, 2 February 1940.

285

References

Ottaway L, 16 July 1941. Ottaway L, no date.

Santoro S, 2 May 1935. Seitz J, 2 December 1935.

VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1945-1949 Director of Education, 27 March 1947.

Education Department, 19 April 1945. Education Department, 11 January 1947

Education Department, 13 February 1947. Garland R, 30 December 1946. VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1949 -1971 Cain V, 27 April 1964. Crellin W, 24 April 1963.

Crellin W, 27 February 1964. Education Department, 20 February 1950.

Education Department, 15 May 1952. Education Department, 14 September 1955.

Education Department, 27 February 1957. Education Department, 27 February 1959.

Education Department, 27 March 1961. Education Department, 19 March 1963.

Education Department, 19 April 1963. Education Department, 9 July 1963.

Education Department, 26 February 1964. Education Department, 8 May 1964.

Education Department, 6 August 1964. Education Department, 27 January 1966.

Education Department, 7 February 1966. Education Department, 9 February 1966.

Education Department, no date.

286

References

Hunt H, 28 April 1953. Kennedy J, 20 May 1971.

Kennedy J, 12 August 1971. Le Clerc A, 22 September 1971.

Moore T, 26 May 1971. Place W, 28 February 1958.

Place W, 25 March 1958. Place W, 23 February 1959.

Place W, 3 March 1959. Place W, 17 February 1960.

Ryan I, 27 May 1952. Rymer B, 19 August 1971

Rymer B, 24 August 1971. Secondary Inspector, 25 October 1968.

Secretary, Education Department, 7 January 1972 Secretary, Teacher’s Tribunal, 6 April 1960.

Szentessy F, 26 December 1971. Warren B, 9 November 1971.

Wheeler D, 8 July 1952. Woodhouse A, 17 February 1960.

VPRS 892 P1 Unit 62 File SC1315 1955 –1959

Headmaster, Coburg High School 25 February 1958.

Headmaster, Dandenong High School 25 February 1958. Headmaster, Glenroy High School 24 February 1959.

287

References

VPRS 892 P1 Unit 63 File SC1315 1972 - 1973 Berka J, 20 November 1972. Bialowieyski M, 9 February 1972.

Bialowieyski M, 12 October 1972 . Bialowieyski M, 18 October 1972.

Education Department, 14 April 1972. Education Department, 27 May 1972.

Endrey, 4 August 1972. Hunter J, 10 August 1972.

Juhasz J, 25 February 1972. Rymer B, 15 February 1972.

Rymer B, 16 February 1972. Rymer B, 7 September 1973.

Scully V, 17 August 1972 Thompson L, 21 February 1972.

Thompson L, 14 September 1972 . Thompson L, 27 October 1972.

VPRS 11790 P1 Unit 439 92/080, Victorian School of Languages Freeman G, 12 August 1991.

Freeman G, 14 October 1992. VPRS 13718 Teacher Record Books (microfilm)

Teacher record 19363, ‘Irene Catherine Ryan.’

Teacher record 18525, ‘Fred George East.’

288

References

Materials found in the VSL archives at the VSL Head Office, Thornbury Abiuso G, February 23 1988.

Abiuso G, 4 March1988. Abiuso G, 22 September 1989.

Ahmed M, 14 October 1972. Directorate of School Education ‘Victorian School of Languages’ brochure, 1992.

Dunstan J, 5 December 1986. Dunstan J, 7 September 1989.

Freeman G, February 20 1991. Freeman G, 12 June 1991.

Freeman G, 2 August 1991. Freeman G, 2 December 1992.

Freeman G, 18 December 1992. Freeman G, 20 October 1993.

Freeman G, 21 July 1994. Gallagher H, 21 October 1975.

Gallagher H, no date. Guest D, 12 February 1993.

Hamer E, 15 March 1974. Hamer E, 9 August 1974.

Hannan B, 23 October 1991.

Kefalianos V, ‘The halcyon years of the Saturday School of Modern Languages- my experiences as a student’, unpublished article

Kesarik S, 4 March 1975. Kesarik S, 8 July 1975.

Kesarik S, 24 May 1977. Kesarik S, 19 July 1979.

Marvan J, 30 July 1974. Marvan J, 31 October 1974.

Merlino F, 23 July 1985. Ministry of Education, Victoria, ‘Victorian School of Languages Students’ Information Circular – 1991’, 1991. MLTAV, ‘MLTAV - Statement of Policy’, 1 November 1977.

289

References

MLTAV, ‘Proposed Revision of the MLTAV’s Statement of Policy’, ML Newsletter 64, April 1977, pp. 9-10.

MLTAV, ‘M.L.T.A.V. policy on the teaching of languages other than English, 1983’, 1983. Moy A, 17 April 1973.

Moy A, 9 May 1973. Office of Schools Administration, Ministry of Education and Training, 19 June 1991.

Peck F, 11 December 1992. Prowse R, 26 March 1974.

Refet M, 30 July 1972. Rymer B, 10 April 1972.

Rymer B, October 1971. Rymer B, 11 November 1973.

SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages, Gross Enrolments – 1975’. SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages Headmaster’s Mid-year Report’, 20 July 1975. SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages’, press release, 17 November 1975.

SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages Annual Report 1972’. SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages, Gross Enrolments – Term 1, 1982.’

SSML, ‘Saturday School of Modern Languages, Gross Enrolments – March – 1987.’ Staff at the SSML at Maribyrnong, 14 June 1986.

Strong K, 16 September 1977. Victorian School of Languages 1988.

VSL, 16 August 1989. VSL, ‘Student enrolment forms’ – 1991.

VSL, ‘The Victorian School of Languages Briefing May 1991.’ VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages President’s Annual Report 1990-1991, 18 March 1991.

VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Principal’s Report to the Annual General Meeting’, 18 March 1991.

VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages School Council 19 February 1992 Principal’s report.’ VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages. Issues to the raised in the meeting with Mr Peter Kirby, Secretary to the Minister’, no date. VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual General Meeting, 26 May 1993, Principal’s Report.’ VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual General Meeting, 26 May 1993, President’s Report.’ VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual General Meeting, School Council, May 1994, Principal’s Report’, p. 7.

290

References

VSL, ‘VSL School Council. Submission to the committee reviewing the VSL and the DEC (Draft), 18 May 1994’, p. 21.

VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual General Meeting, School Council, May 1994, President’s report’, 18 May 1994.

VSL, ‘Victorian School of Languages Annual Reporting Meeting Wednesday 24 May 1995, Principal’s report.’

Interviews Joe Abiuso, 15 February 2013. Leyla Altinkaya, 1 March 2013.

Aleksandra Ceferin, 26 August 2013.

Anne Eckstein, 28 August 2013.

Andrew Ferguson, 18 April 2013. Gil Freeman, 3 February 2013.

Margaret Gearon, 6 August 2013. Bill and Lorna Hannan, 23 October 2013.

Elizabeth Kleinhenz, 16 July 2013. Joe Lo Bianco, 15 April 2013.

George Panousieris, 5 March 2013. Con Papadopoulos, 18 September 2013.

Nesta Potts (nee Doherty), 3 July 2013. Barry Jones, 2 August 2013.

Mavis Jordon (nee Lewis), 30 August 2013. Noel Matthews, 5 July 2013.

Stefan Romaniw, 16 April 2013. Burnie Rymer, 1 February 2013.

Jenny Wilkinson, 16 July 2013.

291

References

Interviews with current VSL staff who could not be named “Alexios”, 6 March 2013.

“Edward”, 23 September 2013. “Elisaveta”, 6 May 2013.

“Milan”, 6 May 2013.

“Redmond”, 31 July 2013.

“Zaklina”, 12 April 2013.

Personal communications Mrs Alexandra Ceferin, 3 December 2013.

Mr John Gregory, 24 June 2013. Dr Barry Jones, 18 July 2013.

Mr Alan Kinder, 22 June 2013. Mrs Fran Reddan, 28 October 2013.

Mr Burnie Rymer, 10 November 2014.

Mr Jim Wheeler, 10 July 2013.

292

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1. Consent information statement and informed consent form

Project Title: From the margins to the mainstream? The Victorian School of Languages and Victoria’s community language groups First Investigator: Associate Professor Bruno Mascitelli, (PhD (University of Melbourne), MIB (Swinburne University of Technology), B. Arts (University of Melbourne)), Associate Dean (International), Senior Lecturer, European Studies, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology Telephone: 03 9214 5363 or Email: [email protected] Student Investigator: Mrs Catherine Bryant, PhD student, (B.A. (Hons), (University of Melbourne), MA (Thesis) (University of Melbourne), Grad. Dip Ed (Secondary), (Monash)), Swinburne University of Technology Email: [email protected] Associate Investigator: Professor Nita Cherry, (BA (Melb), MA (Occup Psych) (Melb), PhD (RMIT)), Professor of Leadership, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology Telephone: 03 9214 5901 or Email: [email protected] Associate Investigator: Dr Hayriye Avara, (BA (Middle East Technical University, Ankara), MA (Hacettepe University, Ankara), PhD (Ankara University), Language Coordinator for the Turkish Consulate General at the Victorian School of Languages, 315 Clarendon Street Thornbury. Telephone: 9474 0500 or Email: [email protected] Introduction to Project and Invitation to Participate You are invited to take part in this research project. It would be greatly appreciated if you would participate by sharing your experiences, recollections and opinions. Thank you for taking the time to read this information. What this project is about and why it is being undertaken This research project is about the Victorian School of Languages (VSL). The purpose of this project is to investigate the way that the Victorian School of Languages developed over the decades, in relation to broader events in Australian history and in light of the country’s policies on languages. Established in 1935, the VSL is today considered a leader in the field of languages education in Australia. Overseas scholars recognise the VSL as a model to be emulated internationally. Extra, who is the authority on immigrant languages in Europe, believes that the VSL has “model-building significance for other multilingual immigrant

Consent Information Statement

(Plain language statement)

22 January 2013

293

Appendices

societies”.1 Despite this, few writers have explained how the VSL overcame difficult beginnings and an unsupportive environment to grow into the school it is today. This research project aims to shed light on these events. Project and researcher interests This research is being conducted for a PhD project by Catherine Bryant, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology. This research project is supported by the Professor Michael Clyne PhD Scholarship, which is funded by the VSL. What participation will involve If you decide to participate in this research, you will be taking part in an oral history interview which will be approximately one hour in length. Interviews will be carried out during business hours at a pre-arranged location that is convenient to both yourself and the researcher, preferably at your office or home. You will be asked to draw on your experiences, recollections and opinions in relation to the VSL. Your voice will be recorded and the audio will be converted into a file so that it can be transcribed on the computer. Some time after the interview, you will be provided with a copy of the interview transcript and you will be asked if you approve it for editing, acknowledging that it gives an honest account of your answers. If you want to change the transcript, you have the right to do so. You will also be asked if you have any relevant old documents, photographs or memorabilia that you may have in your possession that you would be willing to lend to the researcher. If you agree, copies of these will be made so that they may be used as part of the data collection. Finally, on the day of the interview, if you agree, the researcher may ask to take your photograph. This is because it is anticipated that this research will result in a publication in the future, and it is hoped that this publication will include images of relevant personnel. You do not have to agree if you prefer not to be photographed. If you do agree, you will be notified if your photo is going to be published. If you change your mind, any photo taken will be destroyed. Your rights and interests – Risks & Benefits/Contingencies/Back-up Support It is not anticipated that there will be any risks associated with participation in this research project. The possible benefits from this research project are a greater recognition of the VSL and the work that it does. It could also inform curriculum writers and policy makers in the area of languages education. If you decide to participate, your experiences, memories and opinions will make a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge about languages education in Australia. Your rights and interests – Free Consent/Withdrawal from Participation Participation in this research project is voluntary. You are not obliged to take part unless you wish to. Your consent to participate in this research project is to be obtained by reading the detailed information included in the Consent Information Statement (this document) and then signing the Consent Form (attached). The purpose of the Consent Information Statement is to explain clearly what this research project is about. Its purpose is also to explain to you all the procedures that are involved in participating in this research project. If you have read the Consent Information Statement (this document) and you understand what this project is about and what participation will involve, and you would like to participate, you will be asked to sign the Consent Form. If you wish to ask questions about any aspect of this research project before signing the Consent Form, please feel free to do so. If you decide to participate, and during the course of the interview, you find it uncomfortable to answer any of the questions, that question can be skipped. You are free to refrain from 1 Clyne M 2005, Australia's language potential, University of New South Wales Press, p. 170.

294

Appendices

answering any of the questions and to postpone the interview at any time. If you change your mind about participating in this research project, you have the right to withdraw at any time without question or explanation. Any information that you have provided will also be withdrawn. Your rights and interests – Privacy & Confidentiality This study will make use of oral history interviews. In the field of oral history, it is considered best practice for researchers to use the real names of narrators (participants) in the thesis and any publications that arise from the research. This is because context and identity are believed to be key factors in shaping stories told in oral history interviews. Therefore, this study will aim to use the real names of participants. However, you have the right to choose whether you want your real name to be used or if you want to be anonymous. You will be asked to indicate this on the Consent Form. If you choose to be anonymous, you will be referred to by a pseudonym. Also, the researcher will describe any sensitive information that you provide in general terms, to protect your identity from readers. If you choose to remain anonymous, your interview recordings, transcripts and signed consent forms will be stored securely at Swinburne University of Technology so that the researchers will be the only people to have access to it, and it will be destroyed after 5 years from the date of publication. Research output The aim of this research project is that it will result in a major thesis, which is to be submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. It is also anticipated that this research project will result in a refereed journal article and a conference paper. It is possible that the data collected may also be used to publish a book in the future. Further information about the project – who to contact If you would like further information about the project, please do not hesitate to contact: Associate Professor Bruno Mascitelli, Associate Dean (International), Senior Lecturer, European Studies Room AGSE 321 Swinburne University of Technology Ph +61 3 9214 5363 Fax +61 3 9819 2117 Email [email protected] Concerns/complaints about the project – who to contact: This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact: Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122. Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or [email protected]

295

Appendices

Project Title: From the margins to the mainstream? The Victorian School of Languages and Victoria’s community language groups First Investigator: Associate Professor Bruno Mascitelli Student Investigator: Mrs Catherine Bryant Associate Investigator: Professor Nita Cherry Associate Investigator: Dr Hayriye Avara 1. I consent to participate in the project named above. I have been provided a copy of the project Consent Information Statement to which this consent form relates. Any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. 2. In relation to this project, please circle your response to the following:

• I agree to be interviewed by the researcher Yes No • I agree to allow the interview to be recorded by electronic device Yes No • I agree to be referred to by my real name in any publication arising from this research

Yes No • I agree to be referred to by pseudonym in any publication arising from this research

Yes No • I agree to my photo being used in any publication arising from this research

Yes No • I agree to make myself available for further information if required Yes No

3. I acknowledge that: (a) my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation; (b) the Swinburne project is for the purpose of research and not for profit; (c) any identifiable information about me which is gathered in the course of and as the result of my participating in this project will be (i) collected and retained for the purpose of this project and (ii) accessed and analysed by the researcher(s) for the purpose of conducting this project; (d) if I choose to remain anonymous, I will be referred to by a pseudonym. The comments that I provide will be described in general terms in any publications arising from this research in order to protect my identity. By signing this document I agree to participate in this project. Name of Participant: …………………………………………………………………………… Signature & Date: ……………………………………………………………………………….

Informed Consent Form

296

Appendices

Appendix 2: Guide to interview questions

For the main group of participants – SSML/VSL “insiders” (ex principals/ council members/centre managers/teachers)

The participant’s overall involvement in the SSML/VSL

1. Please describe yourself, who you are, your background etc 2. Can you describe your role/ your involvement with the SSML/VSL over the years? 3. Can you describe what it was like for you to work at SSML/VSL over the years?

The role of the SSML/VSL

4. Where did the SSML/VSL fit in relation to language classes that were being provided by other providers?

5. What students was the SSML/VSL catering to? 6. Has the role of the SSML/VSL changed over the decades?

The growth and development of the SSML/VSL

7. Can you give an example of how the SSML/VSL grew or developed while you were there? 8. What or who was driving that change? 9. Did growth or development at the SSML/VSL come about in response to official language

policies? 10. Did the SSML/VSL face any challenges or obstacles?

Victoria’s community language groups

11. How did community language groups go about getting their languages taught at the SSML/VSL?

12. Before that, what was the status of those languages and communities? 13. What impact did that have on those community language groups?

The SSML/VSL’s current situation and future prospects

14. Does the VSL face any challenges now? 15. What is the future of the VSL?

297

Appendices

Appendix 3: Evidence of ethics approval

SUHREC Project 2012/282 Ethics ClearanceKaye GoldenbergSent:Tuesday, 22 January 2013 1:29 PMTo: Bruno Mascitelli; Catherine BryantCc: Anne Cain; Patricia Buckley

To: Dr Bruno Mascitelli, FBE/ Ms Catherine Bryant Dear Dr Mascitelli,

SUHREC Project 2012/282 From the margins to the mainstream? The Victorian School of Languages andVictoria's community language groupsDr Bruno Mascitelli, FBE/ Ms Catherine BryantApproved(Duration:(22/01/2013(To(31/03/2015([Adjusted] I(refer(to(the(ethical(review(of(the(above(project(protocol(undertaken(on(behalf(of(Swinburne's(HumanResearch(Ethics(Committee((SUHREC)(by(SUHREC(Subcommittee((SHESC4)(at(a(meeting(held(on(30(November2012.((Your(response(to(the(review(as(eSmailed(on(8(January(was(reviewed(by(a(SHESC4(delegate. I(am(pleased(to(advise(that,(as(submitted(to(date,(the(project(may(proceed(in(line(with(standard(onSgoing(ethicsclearance(conditions(here(outlined.(S All(human(research(activity(undertaken(under(Swinburne(auspices(must(conform(to(Swinburne(and

external(regulatory(standards,(including(the(National(Statement(on(Ethical(Conduct(in(Human(Research(andwith(respect(to(secure(data(use,(retention(and(disposal.

(S The(named(Swinburne(Chief(Investigator/Supervisor(remains(responsible(for(any(personnel(appointed(to(or

associated(with(the(project(being(made(aware(of(ethics(clearance(conditions,(including(research(andconsent(procedures(or(instruments(approved.(Any(change(in(chief(investigator/supervisor(requires(timelynotification(and(SUHREC(endorsement.

(S The(above(project(has(been(approved(as(submitted(for(ethical(review(by(or(on(behalf(of(SUHREC.

Amendments(to(approved(procedures(or(instruments(ordinarily(require(prior(ethical(appraisal/(clearance.SUHREC(must(be(notified(immediately(or(as(soon(as(possible(thereafter(of((a)(any(serious(or(unexpectedadverse(effects(on(participants(and(any(redress(measures;((b)(proposed(changes(in(protocols;(and((c)unforeseen(events(which(might(affect(continued(ethical(acceptability(of(the(project.

(S At(a(minimum,(an(annual(report(on(the(progress(of(the(project(is(required(as(well(as(at(the(conclusion((or

abandonment)(of(the(project.(S A(duly(authorised(external(or(internal(audit(of(the(project(may(be(undertaken(at(any(time.(Please(contact(the(Research(Ethics(Office(if(you(have(any(queries(about(onSgoing(ethics(clearance(or(you(need(asigned(ethics(clearance(certificate,(citing(the(SUHREC(project(number.(A(copy(of(this(clearance(email(should(beretained(as(part(of(project(recordSkeeping.(Best(wishes(for(the(project. Yours sincerely

298

Appendices

Kaye GoldenbergSecretary, SHESC4****************************Kaye GoldenbergAdministrative Officer (Research Ethics)Swinburne Research (H68)Swinburne University of TechnologyP O Box 218HAWTHORN VIC 3122Tel +61 3 9214 8468(((((