We have a Prime Minister who is fluent in Mandarin Chinese, yet his policy on education is extremely backward. Even the name “Building the Education Revolution” is an oxymoron. Revolutions overturn old ways, they are not “built.” However, we are seeing extensive “building” through contracts for infrastructure often not needed. Funding is going into the wrong sources. It needs to be redirected to people, not just building contractors.

To get Asian language education moving again in Australia we need the very best teachers, particularly at the secondary level. This requires 1) better pay for language teachers; 2) high level proficiency and specialization in one or two related languages.
We all know that secondary level teachers are underpaid, and that they have extremely meager resources. Poor pay, sadly, means lesser qualified staff. This is hardly a mystery, yet our Prime Minister seems to not be aware of this economic reality, or perhaps he knows it but prefers funding others for whatever reason.

The reality is that much of the public education language teaching is done by teachers who have not specialized in Japanese or Chinese – but instead a European language. Most have never passed the highest level Japanese proficiency test. They are not required to do so. Even elite schools – like St. Peter’s (private) in Adelaide – offer Chinese but not Japanese. It is rare to have native Asian speakers employed as teachers. Some languages that are very important for our country’s relationship – and countries with currently high immigration into Australia – are not taught at all at the secondary level in South Australia (I can’t speak for other states). Korean is the most glaring example.

Why are teachers paid so poorly, standards so law, and some languages not taught at all at secondary level? Because the government refuses to properly fund these programs – in the schools – and at university level where these teachers should be trained.

Standards are generally pathetically low. Secondary graduating students in South Australia – level 12 – only need to know some 200 kanji to pass. This is 3rd grade level in Japan – we are talking about 8 and 9 year olds. Students at 3rd year level at university still cannot easily read newspapers published in Japan because of the reluctance of students at university to learn the required number of kanji for literacy – much less the compounds beyond basic kanji knowledge. However, students are strongly influenced by their educational environment – and by academics who hold key positions in departments such as politics and economics (the latter often called “business” these days to attract more student numbers).

The focus on language study in general has become far too narrow. Language study must be situated within a broader study of a nation’s history, culture, and society. The premier place for this in South Australia is Centre for Asian Studies at University of Adelaide. Yet the facilities for the Centre have been cut in half over the last few years, and staff reduced. Flinders University has “Asian Studies” but it is solely Indonesian-focused. You cannot study Japanese or Chinese there. I am the only faculty member at Flinders who researches in primary sources in an Asian language (Japanese – history), yet other faculty members at Flinders with no knowledge of an Asian language (beyond the Indonesian specialists) publish articles on China and other Asian countries. What message does this send to students? The message is that you can be an academic “expert” on an Asian country or region – yet be totally ignorant of Asian languages.

I should add that I am in the American Studies Department, and teach nothing related to Asia, except on Japanese corporations (a business class). There are people like myself – in the universities – whose abilities are ignored, so we work independently, usually with overseas colleagues, sometimes with the few in Australia we can reach.

One final symptom of the source of the problem – beyond funding – exists inside our universities and among some – but not all – of our colleagues in Asian Studies. Let me provide one recent example.

Over the weekend I met with a Japanese scholar in Adelaide who is from Tokyo. We met a decade ago at a research seminar where I made a presentation (Chuo University, City Campus). The seminar was well attended, and it included all the major labor historians of Japan that worked in the Tokyo region.

This scholar is now a visiting research professor at Monash University, connected to Japanese Studies there. The other week he gave a seminar presentation along with another professor from Tokyo, and this professor’s Korean research colleague. Their subject was industrial relations history. There were three presenters, but only three people showed up for the presentation. Three academics from Tokyo – and three Australians present to hear them.

I would suggest that “Asian Studies” academics in Australia need to look to their own practices, and the failed policies of their universities and government(s), to solve this problem of failure in teaching of Asian languages. Consider the key issues: proper funding (secondary and tertiary levels); higher standards; and involvement with teachers and scholars beyond your own doorstep.