Draft 2015-01-03 Constant Leung
English as an Additional Language – A genealogy of language-in-education policies and reflections on research trajectories
Introduction
Additional/Second Language is an important area of the school curriculum in many contemporary societies. In England, for example, official statistics released in January 2013 showed that one in six primary school pupils - 612,160 - do not speak English as their first language. In the secondary school sector, the corresponding figure is 436,150, approximately one in eight pupils In total, there are over one million pupils in schools who are at various stages of learning and using English as an Additional language (EAL). The numbers have doubled since 1997. (For further details see http://www.naldic.org.uk/research-and-information/eal-statistics/eal-pupils). All the relevant demographic data point to continuing linguistic diversity in society (Office for National Statistics, 2014). In some areas of the country linguistic diversity and provision for EAL can now be fairly regarded as ‘ordinary’ features of education in schools. London has the most diverse school population in the country. Over 300 languages are spoken by school students in London (von Ahn et al., 2010), and approximately 43 per cent of the school population comprises learners and speakers of EAL (DCSF, 2009).
In this chapter, my focus will be on the ways in which EAL in England has been conceptualised in the past forty years or so and its impact on research. Any attempt at periodizing ideas and research is hazardous. The main justification for looking at a forty year period in this discussion is that the publication of the Bullock Report (DES, 1975) represented a significant moment in the formation of a curriculum orientation that has persisted to this day, although the main principle presented in the Report took another ten years or so to before it was fully endorsed in policy and practice. Perhaps it would also be relevant to say that the Bullock Report captured the spirit of a good deal of the educational debates surrounding New Commonwealth immigration from the late 1950s onwards. In the first part of this discussion I will first provide a brief account of the context and the reasoning behind the adopting of ‘mainstreaming’ as a policy disposition for EAL. In the second part I will describe the conceptual ideas underpinning the mainstreaming policy. After that I will reflexively explore the ways in which the policy has selectively drawn on particular strands of research from international research to support its central tenets, as well as the possible influence policy may have had on the directions taken in UK-based research. In the last part of this discussion I will sketch out some suggestions for future research.
In this discussion, the term ‘policy’ does not just refer to public proclamations of government policy statements; instead it refers to constellations of official pronouncements, curriculum documents and professional discussions that cohere on a specific view and/or course of action. Terminologically, English Language Teaching in England was largely labelled asEnglish as a Second Language up to the late 1980s, and since the early 1990s, as English as an Additional Language. The terminological change mirrors the developments in ideological and educational perspectives regarding linguistic minority pupils. I will use both terms where appropriate to reflect the zeitgeist of the time period under discussion. The move from ‘Second’ to ‘Additional’ reflects the view that the label itself should suggest that linguistic minority pupils already have other linguistic resources (sometimes more than one language) before learning English. I will also use the neutral term English Language in places where a more generic term is in order. The term ‘bilingual learner/pupil’ has also been used in official curriculum documents and professional discussions to refer to linguistic minority pupils who are in the process of learning to use EAL. Given the devolved nature of public administration in the UK, my comments will be largely confined to developments in England, although some of my observations will resonate with developments in the other parts of the country.
From outsider to mainstream participant
Pupils’ English Language proficiency became an educational issue with the arrival of New Commonwealth citizens from the late 1950s onwards. The term New Commonwealth refers to the then newly decolonised independent countries such as India, Pakistan and Jamaica. While there was no overarching national or local authority educational policy, there was a common view as to what the aims of education should be: to prepare the immigrant children ‘… for a life in a different [environment]’ (DES, 1967:71), and to help make the immigrant child ‘become “invisible”, a truly integrated member of the school community … as soon as possible’ (Derrick, 1977:16). From the very beginning it was recognised that the children from immigrant backgrounds should develop their English as a Second Language (ESL) knowledge and skills as quickly as possible. In practice, where resources were available, schools and local authorities instituted specialist language provision in the form of full-time or part-time reception English Language classes, either within the school site or in separate language centres. This provision was organised as a separate facility outside the regular school curriculum. The assumption was that pupils new to English should attend these classes to learn as much English as possible in a short time so that they could join the regular lessons, e.g. the common length of time spent in full-time classes was one year. Given the lack of a co-ordinated national plan, ESL provision was limited and varied from one area to another (see Leung and Franson, 2001).
The teaching of ESL in this period was informed by a combination of a language-as-structure approach(embedded in and exemplified through everyday functions) and pragmatic professionalism underpinned by native-speaker norms (e.g. Schools Council, 1972). For instance, the Ministry of Education[i] (1963:18) asserted that:
‘The teacher, through his [or her]own clear and natural speech should act as a constant example of the normal intonation, rhythm and pitch of ordinary conversation, using pictures, objects, actions and improvised dialogues to ensure comprehension and to enlarge vocabulary … Most teachers … would stress the importance of basing oral work on a carefully graded vocabulary and carefully introduced sentence patterns.’
The ESL provision developed in the 1950s and 1960s came under scrutiny in the 1970s. Official government surveys of educational provision reported that the reception ESL provision, as it was then constituted, did not prepare children adequately for their integration into mainstream classrooms (e.g. DES, 1971, 1972). This educational short-coming was seen against the backdrop of a changing political and cultural climate. One strand of the initial responses to the arrival of immigrant children had been based on a view that immigrant children represented a threat to standards and to the quality of education in schools. For instance, DES Circular 7/65 (1965:4) states that:
‘It is inevitable that, as the proportion of immigrant children in a school or class increases, the problems will become more difficult to solve, and the chances of assimilation more remote … Experience suggests … that up to a fifth of immigrant children in any group fit in with reasonable ease …but that, if the proportion goes over about one third … serious strains arise.’
Seen in this light, the separate ESL provision helped serve the purpose of diluting the concentration of immigrant children. Levine (1990) noted, this concern for ‘spreading the load’ was itself in keeping with the long tradition in England to provide different kinds of educational provision for different groups within the school population on account of social class, intelligence and so on. At the same time though, another strand of British political opinion was wary of racial and linguistic segregation. The Ministry of Education (1963:9) offered the following advice to local education authorities:
‘As far as the school is concerned, whenever it is desired to treat immigrant children in a rather different way from our own children, for example by putting them in a special class for intensive English teaching, the parents should be briefed as fully as possible about the school’s purposes; otherwise it may be cited as an example of racial discrimination.’
And another official circular from the Ministry provided the following guidance on provision for bilingual learners:
‘… the Secretary of State wishes to emphasise that on suitable occasions the children should join from the beginning in the normal social life of the school and gradually take their place in the ordinary classes as their command of English allows.’ (DES, 1965:2)
These political sentiments reflected the growing awareness of potential charges of racism and racial discrimination, some of which might have been triggered by the discourses circulating at that time on cultural incommensurability and IQ differences. All of this pointed to a heightened sensibility and a need to find an alternative educational approach that would accommodate all pupils in a common curriculum framework. The Bullock Report (1975) was an influential publication produced by a Royal Commission that commanded wide professional support at the time. It foreshadowed some of the arguments that were subsequently adopted a decade or so later. The concern about racial segregation was now given an educational twist:
‘Common sense would suggest that the best arrangement is usually one where the immigrant children are not cut off from the social and educational life of a normal school … [English language teaching] is often carried out in complete isolation from the child’s school … Specialist language teachers need to work in close liaison with other teachers … they should … be in touch with the child’s education as a whole.’ (DES, 1975: 289-90)
In addition to this fundamental shift in the positioning of bilingual learners as ‘full participants’ in school education, the Report also recognised that English Language development was a long term process implicating all areas of the curriculum, and that short term intensive English Language teaching could only serve as a very limited form of initial educational provision.
The combination of socio-political sensitivities regarding possible unwitting racist practice and educational concerns about the inadequacy of short-term language teaching provision pointed to the need for a different set of assumptions and values. Moreover, in school education more generally the idea of promoting mixed ability teaching as mainstream practice was gaining ground at this time (as part of the broader initiative to introduce comprehensive schools in the 1960s and 1970s). The stage was now all set for an overhaul of the approach to ESL provision in schools, at least at the policy level. By 1985 the Swann Report (DES, 1985), produced by another public enquiry set up by the government, put forward the following view:
‘We believe that the language needs of an ethnic minority child should no longer be compartmentalised … and seen as outside the mainstream of education since language learning and the development of effective communication skills is a feature of every child’s education. In many respects, ethnic minority children’s language needs serve to highlight the need for positive action to be taken to enhance the quality of language education provided for all pupils … since … we have the additional resource within our society of bilingual … communities, it is surely right and proper that the education system should seek to build on the opportunities which this situation offers. Linguistic diversity provides the opportunity for all schools , whether monolingual or multilingual, to broaden the linguistic horizons of all pupils by ensuring that they acquire a real understanding of the role, range and richness of language in all its forms.’ (Swann Report, 1985:385-6)
The position taken by the authors of the Swann Report can be seen as an affirmation of the direction set by the Bullock report that came out a decade earlier. The term ‘immigrant children’ was now replaced by ‘ethnic minority children’, a recognition that these children were no longer ‘outsiders’. The educational needs, including language learning needs, of linguistic minority pupils were to be treated as part of the general concern about language development for all children. Linguistic diversity in school was to be regarded as an asset to be exploited for all pupils, instead of being seen as a threat to (monolingual English medium) and to educational standards. As Bourne (1989:64) observed, the Swann Report articulated the ideological basis for a policy disposition ‘to return English language learners to the mainstream classroom’.
The political endorsement of the Swann position was provided by the findings of a quasi-judicial enquiry carried out by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in 1986. The CRE investigated ESL provision in a Yorkshire local authority, known as Calderdale; this local authority screened linguistic minority pupils on admission and those who were not proficient in English were directed to separate ESL provision for a time. The CRE found that, inter alia, ‘the education of children in separate language centres or classes is contrary to the prevailing educational view … that it is better to educate children whose first language is not English in mainstream school classes rather than separately’ (CRE, 1986:6). They also found that ‘children in the ELTS [separate English Language Teaching Service] suffer detriment in that their language development and learning process are hindered by not taking place in an environment where they can learn alongside native speakers of English with a full curriculum’ (op.cit.:13). In short, the CRE deemed the Calderdale local education authority to be practising unintentional and indirect racial discrimination. Together the Swann Report and the CRE Report on Calderdale set the curriculum disposition for ESL that still obtains today. In the next section, I will turn my attention to the ways in which ESL is currently conceptualised as a ‘mainstreamed’ area of the school curriculum.