« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 4: Discussion
This chapter looks at the implications of the key findings from the survey in terms of policy and improvements to provision. It draws on the consultation phase of the research, which considered ways in which current provision for community language learning might be developed or enhanced. A particular focus of the discussion was on the advantages and disadvantages of bringing provision for modern languages and community languages closer together.
The key issues explored in this chapter are:
- the implications of increasing linguistic diversity;
- advantages and disadvantages of different models of provision;
- training and professional development for teachers;
- the need for an inclusive and joined up languages education policy.
4.1 Increasing linguistic diversity
The increase in the range of languages in use in Scotland and across the UK as a whole, and the shifts in population described in section 3.1, raise challenging issues in terms of provision for community language learning. In some cases, established providers are finding that local demand for the languages they have been teaching for a considerable period of time is falling - while it may be rising elsewhere in areas where there has traditionally been little or no provision. There may be no provision at all for the languages of communities which have only recently arrived in the UK, although children in these communities would stand to benefit considerably from opportunities to study a language which they are likely already to speak fluently, and to gain formal recognition for their abilities. In some areas, the number of plurilingual children has increased substantially, along with the range of languages, meaning that there is high demand overall, but there may be only small numbers of speakers of many different languages, making provision difficult and expensive to organise.
In the course of the research, the question of how to develop provision which would build on existing strengths but could better meet the needs of a multilingual population which is both growing and diversifying has been raised by a range of participants at school, local authority, and national levels. A variety of solutions have also been suggested, among which partnerships among a range of institutions has been a key feature.
Partnerships with other schools or further education colleges
The three surveys revealed that partnerships between a group of schools, or between schools and further education colleges, have been developed to rationalise provision for a range of languages for which, in any one location, there may be only a small number of students. For example, one school which had had a substantial Bengali speaking population at one time and had taught Bengali as part of the core curriculum, had seen numbers decline to a level at which this was no longer viable. However, in partnership with a local further education college, they were still able to ensure that students who wished to study the language had the opportunity to do so. Another school, whose population was linguistically very diverse, but where the numbers interested in studying particular languages were too small to make provision feasible, had made contact with other schools in the city, where some of these languages were taught, to use their examiners. The school paid examination fees, and monitored the demand for different languages: if this reached a certain level, the school would then make provision for students to study the languages in question. This model of 'collegiate provision' is also being developed in Northern Ireland to support provision for a range of subjects (including modern languages) where numbers may be small in any one school, but where, over several schools, there may be sufficient demand. The support which new technologies could provide to such partnerships requires further exploration.
Partnerships between mainstream and complementary schools
There are a number of reasons why partnerships between mainstream and complementary schools could be particularly beneficial. Most complementary schools are keen to enter their students for Standard Grade, GCSE, A/S and A level examinations, where these are available. However, complementary school teachers are not necessarily in a good position to prepare their students for these examinations: only a small proportion are qualified language teachers, and many identified greater knowledge of UK examination systems as a key area for their own professional development. In contrast, many mainstream schools are willing to enter students for examinations in their community languages, but do not have sufficient numbers of students to justify making provision. In Glasgow, Shawlands Academy has recognised the potential for synergy in this context and has established links with a wide range of complementary providers across the city and further afield, for whom the school acts as examination centre: in 2004, 84 students sat GCSEs in eight languages, and 85 students sat A/S or A levels in three languages.
Other kinds of partnerships are also possible. In addition to providing space for community language classes to meet after hours or at weekends, some English schools reported taking an active role in promoting this provision to students and their parents, making clear the benefits bilingual students gain from becoming biliterate. Where student numbers are not sufficient for mainstream schools to offer timetabled provision, such partnerships enable schools to ensure that as many bilingual students as possible are able to develop their community language skills, and also to monitor demand and student progression.
A need for local and national policy
Given the growth in the number of bi- or plurilingual school students and the rapid changes in the range of languages spoken and the location of bilingual communities, it is important that local authorities and the relevant national bodies keep track of developments in order to ensure that provision meets needs. Currently, data gathering in this area is somewhat haphazard: some authorities conduct language surveys on a regular basis but others do not; and there appear to be very few schools with an accurate picture of the range of languages used by their students, or of the number of students who speak other languages in addition to English. In these circumstances it is difficult to establish demand for formal provision to support the languages which students speak, or to monitor changes over time and take action if demand increases or falls.
A useful model for Scottish local authorities to consider is that of Finland where municipalities undertake to make provision for community language learning whenever five or more children interested in taking up such provision can be identified. These children may be attending different schools within the municipality, but the municipality arranges transport to bring the children to a central point for after-school provision. Such arrangements depend on good information gathering practices, which are well-established in Finland. As Finland is a country of a similar size to Scotland, what is feasible in the Finnish context may well work in Scotland too.
Evidence from England indicates that developing an accurate picture of the range of languages in use in a particular area is likely to bring economic benefits: for example, the work of the Multilingual Capital researchers (Baker and Eversley, 2000) in identifying the range of languages in use in London has been used to encourage multinational employers seeking a multilingual workforce to locate in London, and most recently, as a factor supporting London's successful bid for the 2012 Olympics. However, it is not enough simply to catalogue the range of languages in use. To be able to capitalise on this potential resource, speakers of community languages need to be encouraged to improve their levels of competence - particularly their literacy skills in their community languages - and for this to happen, suitable provision needs to be available in appropriate locations.
There are thus strong arguments in favour of developing local and national policy to support community language learning, and such policy needs to be based on an accurate picture of local and national linguistic capacity, existing provision and potential demand for further provision. This needs to be accompanied by debate about how best to support and develop provision.
4.2 Models of provision
Three models of provision for community language learning are currently in use, based on three different perspectives:
- that community language learning is essentially a distinctive branch of language learning, requiring different materials and teaching approaches from modern language learning;
- that community language learning is similar or identical to modern language learning and can therefore be accommodated in similar ways;
- that community language learning is best achieved when the language is used as the medium of instruction.
It is not feasible, on the basis of this survey to say which of these models is most effective. In any case, it seems likely each of these models is more or less effective in different circumstances, depending on the learners' backgrounds and aspirations. In this section, we look at the issues underlying each model; and argue for a flexible approach which takes into account the needs and interests of the learners and their communities.
Community languages as a distinctive form of language learning
Is learning a community language qualitatively different from learning a modern language? As noted earlier, languages per se cannot be neatly divided into community languages or modern languages. French is a community language for some children who have French-speaking parents or were brought up in a French-speaking country. Similarly, Gaelic or Urdu can be modern languages for children from English-speaking families who have the opportunity to study these languages from scratch, as part of their language curriculum at school. The labels refer rather to the position of the learners in relation to the language. A language of which the student has had little or no experience outwith school, before starting to study it formally in school classes, is approached as a modern language, where everything about the language has to be learned in a relatively formal context, without the expectation that the students' learning will be significantly enhanced by informal learning outside school. Where students have had prior experience, because of family connections, community experiences, or extensive time abroad in a country where the language in question is spoken, it becomes a community language. In this case, students are likely to have some - and often extensive - experience of the language in informal context, but limited formal knowledge. The student may have little or no literacy in the language, and this may therefore be a major focus of provision, particularly when it involves a different script and very different literacy traditions from English. A community language teaching approach thus contrasts the approach usually adopted when teaching a modern language, in which the focus - particularly in the early stages - tends to be at least as great, or greater, on the acquisition of oral competence.
These differences in the prior experiences of language learners would seem to indicate a need for different models of provision. However, although we are distinguishing between community language learning and modern language learning on the basis of learners' prior exposure to the language, it is also important to recognise that this prior exposure differs very widely from one learner to another. A continuum of exposure can be constructed where 'high exposure' represents the situation in which the learner has spent extensive periods of time in a country or community where the language is in widespread use, has been educated in that language and, as a result, is virtually or entirely indistinguishable from a 'native' speaker of the language, not only orally but in terms of levels of literacy appropriate to their age and the standards expected by this language community. 'Low exposure', at the other end of the continuum, represents the situation in which a child, born and brought up in Scotland, retains some connection to the language and culture of his or her non-Anglophone grandparents or great grandparents, usually in a relatively restricted context (e.g. a family tradition of Gaelic singing or some formal study of Punjabi for religious purposes) and therefore cannot speak the language with any degree of fluency and has little or no literacy. Key factors determining learners' place on the continuum include the extent to which they speak and hear the language in their daily lives, the amount of time spent in a country or area where the language is spoken, and prior opportunities to learn to read and write the language, at home or at school.
Complementary schools have to take this continuum into account in devising appropriate provision for community language learning. In some cases they may be dealing with children who have similar levels of prior exposure (e.g. they are mainly second generation, growing up speaking both English and the other language, but with few opportunities to learn to become literate). In these circumstances, it may be relatively straightforward to arrange appropriate provision at different levels which may be related either to age or more specifically to the amount of formal study in the school which the learners have already undergone. But in most cases, they are likely to be dealing with children whose prior exposure to the language ranges widely over the continuum. They will have to make difficult decisions about organising provision: should it be by age, regardless of the levels of competence of the students, or should they have 'beginner', 'intermediate', and 'advanced' classes, regardless of age level? The teachers may not have the expertise needed to deal with (very) mixed ability classes or with classes where the students' ages vary widely. They may also find it difficult to cope with learners whose linguistic gaps are atypical either of native speakers of the language or of those who learn the language from scratch, the two types of 'typical' learner envisaged by most textbooks.
Complementary schools also have to take into account the learners' goals. These can also vary very considerably from learner to learner and across communities. It tends to be assumed that young learners (of pre-school or primary age) attend classes principally because their parents have decided that they should, and the parents' expectations, rather than the children's own motivation for learning the language, are therefore likely to be an influential factor in determining the focus of provision. We have seen in Chapter 3 that, apart from language skills, complementary school administrators and teachers identified providing access to the history, culture and religion associated with the language as more important than enabling the learners either to gain qualifications or to acquire valuable skills for future career purposes. Historical and cultural factors are often linked to parental concerns - for example that children learn the traditions of the community and can thus develop the cultural identity their parents wish them to maintain in the future. These may or may not be motivating factors for the students themselves.
The combined survey data for Scotland, England and Wales indicate that the numbers of students attending complementary schools start to fall after the age of 14. There may be a number of reasons for this - including the fact that a proportion of these students may be able to take up school-based provision for the language at this point - but one possibility is that as students reach the age at which they are being asked at school to choose the subjects which will best prepare them for the careers they have in mind, they fail to see that their community language studies have much relevance. They may choose to give up these studies in order to accommodate the increased amount of homework and examination preparation which their mainstream school work begins to demand at this point. A rationale for provision which focuses principally on the cultural and heritage value of learning community languages may therefore be less engaging than one which draws attention to the value of qualifications and career potential for students at this stage in their lives.
Community languages as modern languages
Would there therefore be advantages in making stronger links between community language learning and modern language learning, placing greater emphasis on their relevance for future careers, international mobility and travel? In mainstream schools which make provision for community language learning alongside typical modern languages such as French, German and Spanish, there are already opportunities to make such connections. A key factor in support of making similar or identical provision for community languages and modern languages is that the examination criteria at Standard Grade, GCSE, A/S and A level are the same for all languages. A major advantage for community language learners in this context is that the language skills which they may have been developing over many years of extracurricular study, gain formal recognition, contributing, along with other school work and particularly other examination passes, to the portfolio of skills and qualifications which will allow them to progress to further or higher education and on into work.
There are certain important disadvantages, however. One is that the balance of learning activities may not be entirely appropriate. We have seen that community language learners typically need to focus on the more formal aspects of the language - particularly literacy - while, in many cases, their ability to speak and understand the language may already be relatively well developed. A modern languages approach, however, tends to emphasise the development of oral skills, particularly in the early stages of language learning, and to assume that literacy skills follow on from this in a relatively unproblematic way. This assumption may have some validity in relation to the main modern languages studied at school (French, German and Spanish) given that they use the same alphabet as English and that many literacy conventions are similar or identical in the main European languages. But it is less well-founded in relation to the main community languages for which there is school-based provision - e.g. Chinese, Arabic, Urdu or Bengali - all of which use different writing systems from English and require quite different understandings of text construction at discourse level. The extent to which a school-based course in these languages can take into account the different experiences and needs of the students while still preparing them for an examination based on the typical progression patterns of modern languages students learning European languages is difficult to determine. Work currently under way at Goldsmiths College London to devise curriculum guides for some of the principal community languages in use in England may help to answer this question. 7
Another disadvantage is the relatively widespread perception is that, by studying and seeking to gain qualifications in a language of which they have some prior knowledge gained outside school, community language learners are, in some way, cheating the system. Some people - including some modern languages teachers - feel it is unfair that students who may, because of their circumstances, be more fluent in the language than others who have started studying it from scratch at school, have an advantage over the latter group which will eventually lead to them gaining higher exam passes, undeservedly in their view.
There are a number of assumptions to be challenged here. In the most extreme examples, students of, say, Russian origin, may have moved to Scotland at age 14 or 15, and thus could be entered within a few months of their arrival for Standard Grade Russian. They may receive no tuition in the language at all, but still gain the highest grades because they are native speakers of Russian, have been attending school in Russia up until their move to Scotland and are therefore also highly literate. From the point of view of Scottish-born students of Russian, who may have worked hard to learn the language, but achieve lower grades, this may seem unfair. It seems as if the Russian students are being given credit for something they did not work for and are 'naturally' good at. However, this is not really the case. The Russian students have worked hard at school in Russia to become competent and literate in Russian in the same way as Scottish-educated students have worked hard to become competent and literate in English. Because they have left Russia, almost certainly as a result of family circumstances outwith their control, they may have no opportunity to gain credit for this work in Russia. They may be facing a long-term future in Scotland, for which they will need qualifications they are, at this stage, ill-prepared to gain. Standard Grade Russian may be the only qualification open to them because their English may not be sufficiently well developed as yet to enable them to sit other examinations. They are, in fact, at a great disadvantage, compared with Scottish-educated students and it seems unreasonable to deny them the opportunity to gain the only qualifications accessible to them. Moreover, a system of handicapping students who have had opportunities to develop academic skills outside school is not in operation in any other curriculum area: children whose parents have invested in music lessons since early childhood are not barred from Standard Grade music because they are thought to have an unfair advantage, for example; nor are marks deducted from the French examination results of children whose parents have spent annual holidays in France because others have not had the same advantages.
Periodic discussion on this issue on Lingu@net Forum (an email discussion group for modern languages teachers across the UK) reveals a high level of resentment among some modern languages teachers about this situation, particularly in relation to students whose community languages are also studied as modern languages. 8 A key issue to be addressed is the fact that GCSE, A/S and A Level examinations, like Standard Grades and Highers, are norm-referenced rather than criterion-referenced, meaning that a large influx of 'native' Russian speakers inevitably depresses the scores for other Russian learners. If these examinations were criterion-referenced (i.e. the grade gained represents the level of competence achieved regardless of the number of others achieving the same level) the issue would cease to be of such concern.
Recent developments in thinking about languages education in Europe, and in England, may offer some solutions to the problems raised here. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages ( CEFR) was developed by the Council of Europe as a way of setting clear, internationally comparable standards to be achieved at each stage of language learning. It describes the competences needed for communication, the related knowledge and skills and the situations in which different kinds of communication take place. According to the Council of Europe, 'it facilitates a clear definition of teaching and learning objectives and methods and provides the necessary tools for assessment of proficiency' (Council of Europe, 2001). The CEFR is increasingly gaining recognition throughout Europe as a way of ensuring that language learning and qualifications achieved in different contexts, including different educations systems, can be understood and compared.
One of the key ways in which ideas from the CEFR have been introduced and implemented in a range of European countries is via the European Language Portfolio ( ELP), which allows students to record their existing competences in the languages they know and encourages them to build on what they can already do. There are now many different portfolia in use across Europe, designed to match the different education systems and different stages of language learning (e.g. England has developed a portfolio for primary school children and one for adult language learners; Ireland has developed a portfolio for adult learners of English as an additional language, among other portfolia). It does not appear that ELPa have yet been developed specifically with the needs of community language learners in mind, but the English primary ELP has been valuable in enabling teachers to gather a much more detailed picture of children's existing language skills, and to tailor primary provision (which is less constrained by examination syllabi) to these. An important feature of an ELP is that it enables learners to document the skills they have acquired in different contexts, but classified according to CEFR levels, so that subsequent teachers, or employers, can quickly assess the learner's competence in terms of the key language skills (speaking, listening, reading and writing). It is feasible - and perhaps expected - that the learner is recorded as having reached quite different levels in relation to each of the four skills. Thus someone who is highly fluent orally but has only basic literacy in a language can represent the situation accurately, can make clear the need for provision which focuses on literacy rather than oral skills, if this is the case, and apply for jobs which require high levels of oral skills (e.g. in organisations in which staff have extensive daily contact with clients who speak the language in question) even if their literacy skills are not well developed.
Another English development of interest is the Asset Languages Assessment Scheme, developed as part of the (English) National Languages Strategy, by the OCR and Cambridge ESOL examination boards. The aim of Asset Languages is to make assessment and recording of language proficiencies more flexible than current examination systems allow. It is linked to the DfES's 'Languages Ladder', made up of six stages: Breakthrough, Preliminary, Intermediate, Advanced, Proficiency, Mastery. Assessment at each stage is flexible, combining teacher assessment and external assessment, with opportunities to gain certification throughout the academic year. A key advantage of this model (similar to the CEFR) is the recognition that students may have reached quite different levels of competence in relation to each of the skills: those learning community languages may, for example, have higher levels of competence in speaking and listening than in reading and writing. Making this explicit may make students decide that they need to work principally on literacy skills; alternatively, students could decide that they are not concerned about low levels of literacy because their principal goal is to become orally fluent. The Asset Languages scheme is still in the early stages of development, but has considerable potential for community language learners, particularly those who have acquired their skills informally. When the initiative is fully implemented, it will be available in over 20 languages, including Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Punjabi, Spanish and Urdu (currently available); and Arabic, Bengali, Modern Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Irish, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Somali, Swedish, Tamil, Turkish, Welsh and Yoruba (from September 2006).
Community languages as the medium of instruction
A third model of provision for community language learning is where the language is used as the medium of instruction. Historically, this model has rarely been adopted in the UK, but is more common in Europe (particularly in relation to 'indigenous' minority languages such as Frisian in the Netherlands, Basque in Spain, German in Hungary, etc.). In Canada, the USA and Australia, provision for a wide range of 'immigrant' and 'indigenous' community languages typically forms part of 'transitional' programmes: children whose English (or French in some parts of Canada) is limited at the time they are due to start school are enrolled in classes where their primary ('first', 'native', 'mother tongue') language is used as the medium of instruction, with a gradual phasing in of English or French, until they are judged ready to move to classes where English or French is the medium of instruction. The transitional model was developed because research showed that children who began their education in classes where they did not understand the language used as the medium of instruction tended not to make good academic progress. They are controversial, however, because their goal is not usually to enable the children to become fully proficient in both the dominant and the other language but rather to smooth the path towards education in the dominant language, after which the other language typically ceases to be used or valued.
Rather different approaches of relevance in this context are 'immersion' education and 'content and language integrated learning' ( CLIL). The 'immersion' model was developed, from the 1960s onwards, in Canada, where children from English speaking backgrounds were given the opportunity to be educated through the medium of French. This was because there are many jobs in Canada which require employees to be fluent in both the official languages of the country, but English speaking Canadians in particular tended to find it difficult to achieve sufficiently high levels of French through conventional modern language provision. The outcomes of this model have been extensively researched, and studies show that children educated in this way (particularly those who experience 'early total immersion' - i.e. they start to be educated wholly in French from the age of 5 or 6 onwards) achieve much higher levels of competence in French than those who learn the language in traditional modern languages classes. English is gradually introduced in the course of their education, and research shows that immersion educated students achieve the same (and sometimes higher) levels of competence in English as peers educated in English medium schools (Johnstone, 2002).
CLIL can be categorised as a type of 'late partial' immersion. Typically, provision consists of one curriculum subject (e.g. geography or business studies) being taught through the medium of another language. CLIL-based approaches are becoming well-established throughout Europe, and a major longitudinal study (Content and Language Integration Project, or CLIP) into its impact on students' linguistic development, along with their progress in the curriculum subject in question, is currently under way, under the auspices of CILT - the (English) National Centre for Languages. The project website 9 argues that there are substantial benefits for students:
Although it may take a while for pupils to acclimatise to the challenges of CLIL, once they are familiar with the new way of working, demonstrably increased motivation and focus makes it possible (and likely) that they will progress at faster-than-usual rates in the content subject, providing that the principles of CLIL teaching are borne in mind during planning and delivery. CLIL aims to improve performance in both the content subject and the foreign language. Research indicates there should be no detrimental effects for the CLIL pupils (and often progress is demonstrably better). Other advantages include:
- stronger links with the citizenship curriculum (particularly through the use of authentic materials, which offer an alternative perspective on a variety of issues)
- increased student awareness of the value of transferable skills and knowledge
- greater pupil confidence.
In Scotland, there are currently two examples of using a language other than English as the medium of instruction in mainstream schools: the development of Gaelic medium units in primary schools, and the Early Partial Immersion in French ( EPIF) project at Walker Road Primary School in Aberdeen. The Gaelic medium initiative clearly has much in common with provision for regional minority languages in other parts of Europe, in that one of its key aims is to ensure that children from Gaelic speaking families, particularly those living in areas where Gaelic is still in use (the 'Gaeltacht'), have the opportunity to be educated in their 'mother tongue'; and thus that the language itself, at risk of dying out, is preserved. However, in contrast to provision in some other countries, Scotland has made this provision open to children who are not from Gaelic speaking families, nor living in the Gaeltacht. This decision was taken partly for language preservation reasons and partly because it became clear that some parents are keen for their children to become fluent in Gaelic, even when the language is not in use in the family: because the language is seen as contributing to a Scottish identity or heritage, and because of the range of benefits which bilingualism is understood to confer. Currently it is probable that at least 50% of the children attending Gaelic medium units are not from Gaelic speaking families or living in the Gaeltacht. Thus Gaelic medium education needs to be understood as being simultaneously provision to enable children who speak a community language to be educated through the medium of this language and as a version of early total immersion, for children who are not from Gaelic speaking homes or communities. These features of the context make the provision fairly unique 10. To date, its outcomes have been positively viewed both in terms of the academic outcomes, (Johnstone et al. 1999), which replicate the findings from the Canadian immersion studies, and in terms of public perception which seems predominantly positive.
One of the distinctive characteristics of the EPIF project is that it is set in a primary school in a working class area where it seems unlikely that many of the parents are themselves fluent in French The Director of Education for Aberdeen City Council has stated that the project has important social purposes as well as those which could be interpreted in a more narrowly academic sense: "it also seeks to broaden pupils' horizons, give them a sense of wider opportunity and the self-confidence to 'go for it'" (Johnstone, 2002). The positive results which have emerged from the project to date (Johnstone, op.cit.) are therefore important in that they demonstrate that immersion programmes are not only successful when offered to the middle-class children of parents who have consciously chosen such provision and are likely to be very committed to bilingualism for a variety of ideological and pragmatic reasons which may or may not be shared by working-class parents. 11
What do the Gaelic-medium and EPIF projects indicate about the feasibility of introducing provision where other languages in use in Scotland - such as Urdu, Arabic, Chinese or Polish - might be the media of instruction? Although there have been very few attempts of this kind in the UK to date (with one notable exception being the Open Door Project in the 1980s in Bradford; see Fitzpatrick, 1987), there is clearly the potential for the success of these projects to be replicated for other languages. These could draw on the strengths of the Gaelic medium programme - in particular the setting up of units within a school, the mixing of children from community language backgrounds with those from English-speaking backgrounds in the group, and the promotion of bilingualism as an asset to parents and the community more generally. They could also learn from the EPIF project about ways of convincing inner city communities of the value of bilingual education. The benefits of developing such provision could well be felt beyond the children directly involved. Once Gaelic became a medium of instruction in some primary classes, there was a need to develop a wide range of materials, parallel with those available for the teaching of English. Teachers in these schools have become more aware of student linguistic development generally and of the kinds of materials which support bilingual development, particularly in the early years. There are few comparable resources available currently for other community languages, and few teachers - either in complementary schools or in mainstream education - who have had the opportunity to reflect in depth on their students' developing bilingualism. Thus even a small number of Chinese- or Urdu-medium units could have a significant impact on the development of resources and teaching approaches and on thinking about how to support students' bilingualism and bi-literacy.
Developing a flexible approach
Which of these approaches to community language education is likely to be most effective? It is clear from the preceding discussion that finding the answer to this seemingly simple question would be a challenging exercise, in which the meaning of 'effective' (in terms of linguistic and other academic outcomes, and of social, cultural and economic implications) would need to be clearly defined. There are multiple audiences to be considered too - the learners themselves, their families and communities, and wider Scottish society - in seeking to answer the question 'effective for whom?' It seems likely that different approaches are likely to be most effective for different groups of learners with different degrees of prior exposure and different goals.
Provision organised by communities for their own children will have been designed to meet the needs identified by these communities: these tend to include the cultural, historical and religious contexts for which the language is seen as useful or necessary by the community. There is no intention in this report to suggest that meeting such needs is inappropriate or unhelpful. Mahmood (2005) puts forward powerful reasons why this kind of provision plays an important complementary role in the education of children from multicultural and multilingual communities. In fact, this focus raises interesting comparisons with current approaches to modern languages teaching in schools which have been criticised for presenting an ahistorical, de-cultured perspective on language learning (Kramsch, 1993).
However, if we wish to capitalise on the range of languages in use in Scotland, particularly in terms of their potential to support the economic development and international relations, provision for community language learning needs to take such goals into account too. We have seen that community language learners do not necessarily see that the language skills they have acquired have great relevance for their future lives, and particularly for their future careers. In this, they reflect the wider view of Scottish - and UK - society in relation to the value of languages other than English. It is not only community language learners who begin to drop out of language classes from the age of 14 onwards. Recent decades have seen a steep decline in the number of students continuing to study modern languages after the age of 16 (McPake et al., 1999) and, particularly in England, the age at which students abandon language learning is now falling to below 16, i.e. before students have had the opportunity to sit GCSEs in a language ( CILT, 2005a). Initiatives mentioned earlier in this chapter - such as the European Language Portfolio, Asset Languages or CLIP - have all been introduced as ways of making language learning more accessible and more relevant to students who have not only a wide range of subject options to choose from, but also far more extensive - and contradictory - information available to them about the subject choices most appropriate for the worlds of higher education and of work to which they aspire. It is important to ensure that such initiatives include community language learners as well as modern language learners, as they are influenced by the same factors and share many of the same goals.
The conclusions reached following the consultation phase are as follows.
i. Complementary schools have played and continue to play a crucial role in the maintenance and development of the languages they teach. Their approach reflects community concerns and interests and provision is therefore likely to meet many of the goals of students and their parents, particularly in terms of cultural and religious heritage and identity.
ii. However, complementary schools have limited funding to achieve their goals. Staff are often volunteers, with professional development needs which are difficult for the complementary sector to meet. The value of the languages they teach for their students' future studies and careers may not be a major focus of their work, and therefore the wider societal benefits to be derived from a highly competent, literate, multilingual population may not be achieved.
iii. For these reasons, closer links with mainstream provision for modern language learning are recommended. These links would enable community language learners to gain recognition for the language skills they have acquired and take these further, particularly in terms of gaining formal qualifications. It would also enable them to make more explicit links between community and modern language learning, and to identify an appropriate place for all their language skills in their future study and career plans.
iv. A more flexible approach to community and modern language learning is needed to combat the increasingly widespread perception that the ability to use languages other than English is unnecessary in a 'globalised' world. This includes the development of diverse models of provision (including immersion and CLIL approaches) and more flexible modes of assessing and recording students' language skills (including the development of the ELP and consideration of the use of the Asset Languages Assessment Scheme in Scotland).
4.3 Professional development for community languages teachers
The Scottish, English and Welsh surveys show that community languages teachers have a wide range of qualifications, from the UK and overseas, and differing experiences of language teaching. While most of the community languages teachers employed in mainstream schools in Scotland had Scottish teaching qualifications, only around a fifth of those in the complementary sector were in this position. One of their key requirements identified by all community languages teachers is for greater opportunities for professional development. In some areas, their concerns are similar to those of modern languages colleagues: they are looking for opportunities to develop their use of ICT in the classroom, interested in finding ways of making language learning more engaging and enjoyable, and, like all teachers, they are concerned to become more effective in areas such as classroom management, understanding and responding to different student learning strategies and improving the quality of their teaching.
Other issues are more specific to community language teaching. Given the diversity of students' prior experiences of the languages they study, as set out in the previous section, teachers have a particular concern for mixed-ability teaching and differentiation, to enable them to work in classes with similar abilities but mixed ages, or conversely, similar ages but a wide range of abilities and experiences.
Professional development is expensive and may be difficult for teachers from complementary schools, in particular, to access. One approach may be to support the development of partnerships, between community languages and modern languages teachers in the same school or authority, and between teachers of the same languages in different areas. Informal discussions and opportunities to network may enable teachers to share ideas and approaches and also help to identify a wider range of professional development options.
In this context, there have been two initiatives in England which may be of relevance for Scotland. The first is a website, Multiverse, set up by the Training and Development Agency for Schools ( TDA) in England, 12 following a survey of newly qualified teachers which sought to establish which aspects of their work they felt their initial teacher education had least effectively prepared them for. This turned out to be working with bilingual pupils. The site acts as a repository for a wide range of materials which can be used in initial teacher education or continuous professional development courses, with a focus on multiculturalism and multilingualism. Although these materials are intended for mainstream teachers without particular expertise in this area, many have wider relevance: for example, in the section on 'bilingual and multilingual learners', there are articles and professional development activities on the importance of enabling children to maintain and develop their other language(s) as well as English, on pupil perspectives and those of parents and communities, and a collection of English and European policy documents. In Scotland, we already have a website designed for modern languages teachers, the Modern Foreign Languages Environment, 13 although this does not currently include materials specifically aimed at community languages teachers. A website which combined the strengths of Multiverse and the MFLE (possibly an expansion of the MFLE), aimed at community languages teachers in Scotland, could provide considerable support.
Secondly, an increasing number of English teacher education institutions ( TEIs) are offering initial teacher education for community languages. There are currently at least eight providers of such courses in England, training teachers of Arabic, Bengali, Japanese, Mandarin, Punjabi, Turkish and Urdu. The approach adopted by Goldsmiths College in London is interesting in that their student teachers qualify in two languages - a 'community' language (Mandarin, Arabic or Punjabi) and a 'modern' language (French, German or Spanish), thus enabling student teachers to make explicit connections across models of language learning (optionally, they can also include the teaching of English as an additional language in the qualification) and also ensuring that their chances of finding full-time work in mainstream schools are enhanced, if this is their goal. Currently, no Scottish TEIs offer initial teacher education in community languages other than Gaelic. There are no opportunities to train to teach Urdu, despite the fact that Standard Grade Urdu has been available since 1999; therefore Urdu teachers employed in Scottish schools have had to qualify as teachers of other subjects: our survey showed that over a third (38%) did not have any specific training in language teaching at all.
4.4 An inclusive and joined-up language policy for Scotland
The start of a new century seems to have been viewed as an appropriate time to review language education policy. In Scotland, the Minister's Action Group for Languages produced the report Citizens of a Multilingual World which sets out a clear rationale for language learning in the 21 st century, including the ability to communicate, to access other cultures, to enhance awareness of language, to support economic regeneration and promote labour mobility, to make full use of the ICT revolution, and to contribute to social inclusion, citizenship and democracy (Minister's Action Group for Languages, 2000). At the same, time, the National Cultural Strategy also identified a key role for all Scotland's languages both in 'creating our future' and in 'minding our past' (Scottish Executive, 2000). At UK level, the Nuffield Language Inquiry was set up to review the UK's capability in languages for the first 20 years of this century and to establish whether existing policy and provision were sufficient (Nuffield Languages Inquiry, 2000). In Europe, both the European Union and the Council of Europe reviewed and expanded their already strong commitment to promoting language learning across Europe. For example, in March 2002, the heads of state and government of the European Union meeting in Barcelona called for at least two other languages in addition to a child's 'mother tongue' to be taught from a very early age; and in 2003, the Commission committed itself to undertake 45 new actions to encourage national, regional and local authorities also to work for 'a major step change in promoting language learning and linguistic diversity'. The Council of Europe, in addition to the development and promotion of the CEFR and the ELP mentioned in section 4.2, has also produced a guide to the development of language education policies in Europe, developing the concept of plurilingualism (Beacco and Byram, 2003), and setting up mechanisms to support countries or communities which wish to review their current policies. 14
In contrast to languages education policy of the 20 th century, which, implicitly or explicitly, excluded most or all community languages from discussion, policy or provision, focusing rather on the major European languages, all of these early 21 st century developments have expanded the scope of languages education to include all the languages which Scottish, UK or European citizens already speak or might wish to learn. For example, Citizens of a Multilingual World (op.cit.) states that:
It will be important to provide opportunities for linguistic development and accreditation for those who wish to continue to develop their skills in a heritage or community language or who wish to develop a language which is a significant part of their cultural identity, including British Sign Language.
(p.15)
The European Union's policy on Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity (Commission of the European Communities, 2003) recognises that:
Promoting linguistic diversity means actively encouraging the teaching and learning of the widest possible range of languages in our schools, universities, adult education centres and enterprises. Taken as a whole, the range on offer should include the smaller European languages as well as the larger ones, regional, minority and migrant languages as well as those with 'national' status, and the languages of our major trading partners around the world.
(p.9)
The Council of Europe's Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe (op.cit.) argues that:
Steps should […] be taken to make everyone aware that plurilingualism is a social and personal value in order to move to plurilingualism conceived as a form of contact with others. This means embracing the teaching of all languages in the same educational project and no longer placing the teaching of the national language, regional or minority languages and the languages of newly arrived communities in water-tight compartments.
(pp. 35-6)
These shifts imply the need both for an inclusive language policy, which recognises all languages as having a place, and seeks to break down power and status differentials; and for what Lo Bianco (2001) described as joined-up policy for languages education in Scotland. At the time his report on Language and Literacy Policy in Scotland was written, a range of different bodies had responsibility for different aspects language and literacy policy: languages education in schools, cultural policy, adult literacy, Gaelic, etc. Bodies responsible for economic policy rarely or never identified the linguistic implications of their decisions: Lo Bianco gives the example of the 2002 EU review of fisheries policy, likely to have a greater impact on Scottish fishing communities than anywhere else in the UK and to lead to the loss of traditional livelihoods and the need for a new diversified economy - yet neither the general nor the more specialised language and literacy implications of these changes were addressed. In the period since, the report was published, it would be difficult to argue that much had changed, despite powerful arguments which Lo Bianco set out for the benefits to be derived from recognising the role which language and literacy skills play in all aspects of social and economic life in Scotland.
An inclusive policy
An inclusive language education policy would recognise that all languages used and studied in Scotland have an important role to play in developing the communicative potential of the population. Currently, we have some moves towards this (as evidenced by the Citizens of a Multilingual World and National Cultural Strategy documents cited above) but there are still hangovers from earlier policy positions in which European languages were seen as more important or relevant than other languages. More damaging, perhaps, is the dominance of English which pervades thinking at every level, so that, for example, modern languages teachers sometimes seek to exclude children in the early stages of learning English from their classes on the basis that they cannot learn another language until their English has improved; or that school managers feel that they cannot make provision for community language learning in their schools because the priority has to be English as an additional language. 15 There have been, from time to time, pronouncements by UK politicians to the effect that multilingual communities should use English at home, because this would be the best way of supporting their children's education; and also in public, to promote social cohesion, seen as threatened by the use of languages other than English (cf Blunkett, 2002).
There is no intention in this report to suggest that children who have recently arrived in Scotland and are attending school here should not have to learn English: English is essential for their access to the full range of educational opportunities and moreover is a valuable asset for them, whether their future lies in Scotland or elsewhere. But the learning of English and of community languages is not mutually exclusive: there is, in fact, extensive research to demonstrate the benefits of enabling children to develop their primary language and the dominant language alongside each other (see Thomas and Collier, 2002, for one of the most extensive US studies on this issue). It is a hierarchical vision of the importance of different languages which leads people in positions of power and influence to privilege English and ignore other languages, despite the evidence that this approach is counter-productive.
At national level, we can see the legacy of earlier, non-inclusive languages education policy. French, German, Spanish and Italian are entrenched as the languages studied at school, with Urdu making little inroads, despite the introduction of Standard Grade Urdu in 1999. It tends to be assumed that Urdu will be of interest only to students of Pakistani origin, despite evidence from schools which offer the language that other students express an interest in learning a 'different' or 'more exotic' language - or, more pragmatically, are keener to learn a language spoken in their local area in preference to one spoken in a faraway country which they have no plans to visit, by people they have no expectation of ever meeting. This is not to suggest that European languages have no role in Scottish schools. Clearly, economic, diplomatic and cultural ties with our European neighbours are increasingly important and an ability to communicate in these languages will remain a key concern. The question is rather whether other communicative contexts can continue to be considered less important. In the 21 st century, Mandarin and Arabic have at least as significant an economic and diplomatic role as European languages; but currently we do little to encourage children who already study these languages to develop their competence or achieve qualifications which would enable them to make use of their linguistic skills for Scotland's benefit. In view of increasing linguistic diversity within Scotland, as documented in earlier sections of this report, there is a growing need for interpreters, translators and bilingual workers, and more generally for a workforce with a greater understanding of cultural diversity and its implications in service encounters (McPake and Johnstone, 2002). But in an education system where there are currently few opportunities for students to develop their community language skills (particularly literacy) or gain qualifications, where will this workforce come from?
In recent years, considerable policy attention has been devoted to the preservation and promotion of Gaelic, culminating in the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act which comes into force in February 2006. This is designed to promote the use of Gaelic, secure the status of the language and ensure it has a long-term future. Specifically, it
- recognises Gaelic as an official language of Scotland, commanding equal respect with English;
- establishes Bòrd na Gàidhlig as part of the framework of government in Scotland with a key role in promoting Gaelic in Scotland, advising Ministers on Gaelic issues, driving forward Gaelic planning and preparing guidance on Gaelic education;
- requires the creation of a national plan for Gaelic to provide strategic direction for the development of the Gaelic language and provides a framework for the creation of Gaelic language plans by Scottish public bodies.
Scottish Executive Press Release, 13 February 2006: < http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/02/13130418>
These developments are important and the new official status of Gaelic can be seen as a step on the route to formal recognition of Scotland as a multilingual country. But what of Scotland's other languages, whether 'indigenous', such as Scots or British Sign Language, or originating elsewhere but now well-established in Scotland? An inclusive language education policy would recognise that all languages should command 'equal respect', that there is a need for guidance on education to support the learning of all languages of relevance to Scotland, and that there needs to be a national plan for the development and integration of all languages in use. This is not to say that Gaelic should have less prominence. Gaelic has an important place in Scottish history and culture and has been damaged - perhaps fatally - by a long history of neglect and overt hostility. Nor is it the case that all languages in use in Scotland require the same kinds of institutional support. But an inclusive policy would seek to value and promote all languages both in an educational context and in the wider context of public discourse in Scotland.
A joined-up policy
A joined-up policy would recognise the benefits to Scotland firstly of linking all policy areas which have an impact on the development of communication skills; and secondly of auditing and reviewing the communication needs associated with all policy domains. Thus at national level a communication development strategy would link basic communication skills, literacy, language learning of all kinds, and ICT in the context of social, economic, cultural, democratic activities.
The benefits would be the development of a more systematic and comprehensive approach to the development of the suite of high level communication skills which, it is increasingly recognised, all nations need to participate in the globalised economy: this is a particular feature of current debates around the competing demands of globalisation and localisation (Hegarty, 1999; Feely and Harzing, 2003; InterAct International, 2003a and 2003b).
A joined-up communication development strategy would support the early identification of aspects of policy decisions generally likely to change or influence the demand for communication skills. For example, the Scottish Executive's policy statement Smart, Successful Scotland (2001), which sets out what the Executive expects from Scotland's Enterprise Networks, identifies becoming 'the most globally connected nation in Europe' as a key aspiration for Scotland in the 21 st century. A range of challenges to be met in order to achieve this are set out in the document: Scotland needs to become a 'leading digital nation', to have 'increased involvement in global markets', to be seen as a 'globally attractive location' and to encourage 'more people choosing to live and work in Scotland'. But at no point is there any mention of the need to develop communication skills, or, more specifically, to enhance Scotland's capacity in languages other than English, in order to succeed.
A Curriculum for Excellence (Scottish Executive Curriculum Review Group, 2004), which has drawn attention to the overarching principles for Scottish education, is likely to have an important role to play in developing a more joined-up vision. The document sets out four key outcomes for Scottish education, from age 3-18:
Our aspiration for all young children and every young person is that they should be successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors to society and at work.
(p.6)
At the time of writing, groups are meeting to identify ways in which different curriculum areas, including language (which includes English and classical, modern and community languages), can support the achievement of these outcomes, and their decisions are not yet known. But it seems clear that languages education has much to contribute to these goals, and much to gain from a curriculum strategy which seeks to engage teachers from all curriculum areas in common cause. To take just one of these outcomes - responsible citizens - languages education has a significant role to play in terms of emphasising 'the rights and responsibilities of individuals and of nations' (p5); understanding 'diverse cultures and beliefs' (p.11) and developing the ability 'to communicate in different ways and in different settings' (p.12). And by ensuring that this and the other outcomes are central to what languages education sets out to achieve, its cross-curricular relevance is demonstrated.
At school level, a joined-up communication development strategy would entail an audit of communication needs across the curriculum and identification of areas where existing provision meets these needs, where there are gaps and how these gaps might be filled. All teachers - not just those overtly concerned with the development of communication skills (i.e. English and modern/ community languages teachers, EAL staff and bilingual assistants and teachers of ICT) - have potential to contribute to this work; and earlier projects on communication across the curriculum have identified a number of ways of facilitating this work: see, for example, Hough and Mitchinson (2000); Mann (2002); and the Building Bridges in Literacy website 16.
Such an audit is a two-way process, focusing not only on the communication demands of the curriculum and how these can be met but also on the communication needs and aspirations of the pupils. Some of these may be closely linked to the curriculum, but others may differ, go beyond what schools typically expect to do, or challenge schools' philosophies. There are many examples of this kind of mismatch, often unintentional, between students' and schools' perspectives. In a study of the causes of decline in uptake of modern languages provision in the upper secondary school, McPake et al. (1999) found that students who could be described as the best linguists in their schools (those who had gained Credit level passes at Standard Grade and were preparing to sit Highers in two or more modern languages) were nevertheless dissatisfied with their progress and unconvinced that their success was due to anything other than good luck. It emerged that these students perceived 'good' linguists to be people who could communicate with virtually 'native-like' fluency in the languages they were studying. They did not understand that such goals were unrealistic for school level language studies - and their disappointment was often a factor in their decision not to continue with language study after school. Language teachers, unaware that their students had such expectations, often failed to discuss realistic goals or to explore with these ambitious students how they might achieve their goals in the long term. Other examples in the context of ICT indicate that the aims of educational provision can be quite widely at odds with what students want to learn and how they communicate via new technologies outside school, leading one commentator to argue that in the near future young people may cease to regard schools as having any relevance to their educational needs and aspirations in this context, and perhaps in others too, as a result (Gee, 2004). In relation to community languages, the very existence of the complementary school network demonstrates the failure of mainstream education to meet the needs of a substantial group of plurilingual students. All of these examples and many others point to a need for schools to assess students' existing communicative skills and goals periodically, and for continuous monitoring and negotiation of these.
CLIL presents considerable potential in this context, for a variety of reasons. CLIL programmes enable students to make the link between their language learning and other aspects of their studies and future career plans which discrete language classes often struggle to achieve. For example, those who have the opportunity to learn business studies through the medium of Chinese have the opportunity to develop a knowledge of Chinese business terminology and cultural practices in a business environment which will be of considerable value to those who go on to work in international business: a recent survey of language and cultural service providers predicted that Chinese, along with French and Spanish, will be the language for which there is greatest demand in the business world in the near future ( CILT, 2005b). Not only the students benefit. Teachers trained to teach CLIL are likely to develop a more nuanced understanding both of how to communicate with students and of the ways in which students learn to communicate their ideas because the approach draws attention much more specifically to communication practices in the classroom than may be the case either for those who teach business studies through the medium of English or those who teach Chinese as a modern or community language. CLIL will also require the development of new and more targeted teaching materials which should also help to make much more explicit the links between language learning and future studies or careers.
« Previous | Contents | Next »