LearningJourna/,Sunner 200/, No23,4-/2 Language
Languagepolicyi n mu l ti l i n g u a l UK Terry Lamb University ofNottingham
"the number of languages spoken continues to increase...in London there are over 300 languages spoken by children of school age"
U K h a v e m a i n l y f o c u s e do n t h e c u r r i c u l u m t n general,both in terms of debateson the curricular implicationsof multicultural and anti-racist education,and in terms of broaderschool policy. includingthe hiddencurriculum(see,for example, Gillborn 1995;Lamb 1999a,1999b:Mullard 1982; Sarup l99l; Troyna 1993;Troyna and Carrington 1 9 9 0 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s st h e r e h a s b e e n a s e r i e so f policy responsesto linguistic diversity over the last 35 years,rangingfrom an assimilationistfocus on the teachingof English as a secondlanguage to a broadermore celebratoryattemptto recognise and promotethe many communitylanguages.This article is not intendedto plot the developmentof these policies, though it does begin by pointing INTRODUGTION out that such developmenthas tendedto proceed in an uncoordinatedway and has been subjectto Despite the belief of many that use of minority t h e v a g a r i e s o f f i n a n c i a l c u t b a c k s .T h i s b r i e f l a n g u a g e sw o u l d d i s a p p e a r a s t h e v a r i o u s contextualisationwill be enrichedby a summary linguistic communitiesbecamemore'integrated' i n t o B r i t i s h s o c i e t y a n d a s i m m i g r a t i o n s l o w e d of the needs of community languagegroups as down, the number of languagesspokencontinues p e r c e i v e d b y a g r o u p o f c o m m u n i t y l a n g u a g e teachersin Nottingham,a city in the EastMidlands to increase.A recentstudy showedthat in London by children there are over 300 languagesspoken w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y3 0 0 , 0 0 0 (Baker Eversley 2000; Gundara age and of school inhabitants.The articlewill then describeone city2 0 0 0 ) . T h i s c o m p a r e sw i t h t h e l a s t L a n g u a g e w i d e i n t e r v e n t i o n a i m e d a t p r o d u c i n g a Census conducted by the Inner London c o o r d i n a t e dr e s p o n s et o l i n g u i s t i c d i v e r s i t y , EducationAuthority in 1989 which revealedthat namelythe SheffieldMultilingual City project,and there were speakersof 184 different languagesin w i l l c o n c l u d ew i t h a d i s c u s s i o no f s o m e o f t h e London'sschools(ILEA 1989).At that time there emergingissues.It shouldbe statedthat the focus were over 70,000pupils in ILEA schoolswho used on the two cities of Nottingham and Sheffield is a languageotherthan, or in additionto, Englishat not intended to suggest that they are home, making up a quarter of the school of their respectiveareas.Nor were representative population.ln Sheffield,England'sfourth city, the s e l e c t e di n o r d e r t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e y i n i t i a l l y linguistic makeupis lessdiverse,but nevertheless policies. Their inclusionis, in fact, in differences there were 48 different languagesspoken there in the fact that I live in one and determined by solely 1994,rhe numberof bilingualshaving doubledto had a personal and therefore in the other, work 8 . 1 % o f t h e p r i m a r y s c h o o l a n d 1 . 5 % oo f t h e in both happening what was in finding out s e c o n d a r ys c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n o v e r t h e p r e v i o u s interest eightyears(SUMES 1994).By 1996,57 languages l o c a l i t i e s . were spoken in Sheffield, and the numbers of Throughout the article the languagesspoken speakersof these languagescontinue to increase b y m i n o r i t y g r o u p s w i l l b e r e f e r r e d t o a s (suMES,r997). , term first used in the c o m m u n i t y l a n g u a g e sa Educationalresponsesto such diversity in the 1980s.I have chosento use this term for several
more the UK is becoming As recentreportshaveconfirmed, especially in urbanareas.This and morelinguistically diverse, policymightrespond waysin whicheducational articleexplores research lt begins byreporting ona small-scale to thesechanges. project language designed to findoutfroma number of community to be the linguistic in Nottingham whattheyconsider teachers in both andhowthesemightbe fulfilled needsof theirchildren Havingidentified these andsupplementary schools. mainsheam of the Sheffield needs,the articlethenturnsto a descriplion An analysisof this projectservesto Multilingual CityProject. for thedevelopment of a coherent identify someusefulprinciples policywhichwouldinclude the voicesof the variouscommunity thatthere Thearticleconcludes by arguing language speakers. policyframework to promote designed is a needfor a national policies language in all areas,andthatthisshould appropriate are met, needsof all of our children ensurethatthe linguistic regardless of wheretheylive.
L o n g u o g e L e o r n i n gJ o u r n o l
LANGUAGE POLICY INMULTILINGUAL UK
reasons:firstly, it reinforces the fact that these languagesare, on the whole, an integral part of l o c a l c o m m u n i t i e s( t h o u g h t h e s i z e s o f t h e communitieswill of coursevary); secondly,unlike the previously used term 'heritage languages',it doesnot imply that theselanguagesbelong in the past;and thirdly, I haveavoidedthe term 'minority languages'sincein somecontextsthey are,in fact, used by a majority of the population.
Is therea coherentplan to build on this and at the s a m e t i m e t o d e v e l o pm o r e p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s amongstour monolingualpopulation?Or are we happy to write ourselvesoff as a nation which is l i n g u i s t i c a l l y h o p e l e s s ,i g n o r i n g t h e l i n g u i s t i c proficiency already evident in a significant proportion of our population? U n f o r t u n a t e l y ,t h e U K d o e s n o t y e t h a v e a c o h e r e n tn a t i o n a l p o l i c y t o p r o m o t e l a n g u a g e learningand teaching,though the recentNuffield LANGUAGES ANDTHEUKCONTEXT Inquiry (2000) offers some hope of this in the s t r e n g t h o f i t s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .I t i s n o t The nationalpicture surprisingthen that the different types oflanguage The recent Nuffield Inquiry (2000) highlighted (modernforeign languages,community languages some worrying aspectsof the state of language and English) are being pigeon-holedas different teachingand learning in the UK. Theseincluded types of problem (and I use this word with full f a l l i n g n u m b e r s o f A l e v e l c a n d i d a t e s ,f e w e r a w a r e n e s so f i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s ) .T h u s , t h e 1 9 9 5 u n d e r g r a d u a t e sa, n d a s h o r t a g eo f l a n g u a g e versionof the NationalCurriculumfor Englishwas t e a c h e r s( s e e a l s o S a u n d e r s 1 , 9 9 8 ) .H o w e v e r ,i f more influenced by the call for a return to the situation is bad with regard to the European traditional standards,values and methods in the languagestraditionally taught in British schools, t e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h t h a n b y b r o a d e r l a n g u a g e the situation for community languagesis even i s s u e s .T h e 1 9 9 9 v e r s i o n o f t h e M F L N a t i o n a l w o r s e . D e s p i t e t h e l a r g e n u m b e r o f l a n g u a g e s Curriculum has no referenceto the fact that there spokenand the increasingglobal significanceof are many pupils with multilingual backgrounds. manyof them (Graddol,1991,1998), we havea list There are no observations on handling o f o n l y l 9 o f f i c i a l l a n g u a g e so n t h e N a t i o n a l b i l i n g u a l i s m i n t h e n e w P r i m a r y S t a n d a r d sf o r Curriculum, of which eight are the official Initial TeacherTraining. Given that the recently l a n g u a g e so f t h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n . A n o n introduced compulsory study of a languageup to European language can be offered by a school the ageof sixteenseemsto be coming into question o n l y i f t h e y a r e o f f e r i n g a t l e a s t o n e o f t h e s e a l r e a d y ,t h e r e i s l i t t l e h o p e t h a t t h e C o m m o n Europeanlanguages- a significant statementof EuropeanFramework for languagelearning being s t a t u s .I n l i n g u i s t i c a l l y d i v e r s e c i t i e s s u c h a s issuedby the Council of Europeand currently in Nottingham,it would appearthat the number of its seconddraft form will have any meaning in the community languageteachersin the mainstream UK, since it statesthat all pupils must learn at f e l l d r a m a t i c a l l yi n t h e 1 9 9 0 s ,a n d s p e c i a l i s t leasttwo foreign languagesat school(seeCouncil advisors are now few and far between (and this is of Europe Modern Languages page: http:ll alsoincreasinglythe casefor othersubject-specific culture.coe.frllang/index.html). Indeedevenwithin a d v i s o r s ) .T h e r e i s a v e r y r e a l t h r e a t t o s o m e our NationalCurriculumthereare inconsistencies. community languageexaminations(for example, B i l i n g u a l i s m i s l a r g e l y i g n o r e d i n m o s t o f t h e Arabic at GCSE and A level, and Hindi at GCSE d o c u m e n t a t i o n ,i m p l y i n g a n a s s i m i l a t i o n i s t l e v e l ) s i m p l y b e c a u s et h e y a r e d e e m e d t o b e position, whereas in Wales the development of f i n a n c i a l l y u n v i a b l e b y e x a m i n a t i o nb o a r d s . bilingualismis now part of the schoolcurriculum. F u r t h e r m o r e ,m o s t o f t h e s e l a n g u a g e sa r e n o t offered in higher education,and there have been The needsof linguisticminoritygroups caseswhere some higher education institutions havefailed to recognisean A level in a community Nottinghamis a large city in the EastMidlands of languageas part of their entry requirements,since E n g l a n d .I n 1 9 9 8 t h e r e w a s a r e o r g a n i s a t i o n of a qualificationin one's mother tongue is deemed l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t ,a n d t h e c i t y o f N o t t i n g h a m t o b e a n e a s y o p t i o n ( u n l e s s i t h a p p e n st o b e b e c a m e a u n i t a r y a u t h o r i t y s e p a r a t ef r o m t h e English). In addition, there are very few courses c o u n t y o f N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e , f o r w h i c h n o leading to qualified teacherstatusin community demographicdetails are availableas yet. However, languages,though some progresshas been made some indicationof linguistic needscan be seenin r e c e n t l yi n t h i s a r e a ( s e e P a g l i e r oa n d K e e n a n , county figures from 1991, at which time survey 2000a,2000b). resultsshowedthat of 5671 pupils from the New C o m m o n w e a l t h3 9 3 4 " h a d a d e g r e eo f E n g l i s h So what strategiesare in place at a national languageproficiency which was a barrier to full level to improve this situation?Are we aiming to make positive use of the existing linguistic curriculum access"(NottinghamshireEducation resourcesof the countty at a time when there is Authority 1996). increasingdemand in the world of businessnot Supportfor bilingual children was until recently only for WesternEuropeanlanguagesbut also for provided through Section I I funding (from the those from other parts of the world, in particular Home Office). and is now devolved to schools. S.E.Asia andthe Indiansubcontinent (Land2000)? T h i s s p e n d i n go n t h e n e e d so f b i l i n g u a l p u p i l s
No23Summer2001
"The recent Nuffield Inquiry (2000) highlighted some worrying aspects of the state of language teachingand learningin the UK"
has,however,focusedmainly on Englishlanguage support, with only some residual support for first languagedevelopmentthrough limited funding for s u p p l e m e n t a r yl a n g u a g es c h o o l s f u n c t i o n i n g outside mainstream education (one of the Assistant Directors of Education has supplementaryschoolingas part of her brief).
Carryingout the research
"Community languages... should not...be offered as an alternative to European languages, since all pupils must be able to learn these languages if they are to have access to the benefits of the Single Market and mobility...they should be offered in addition to European languages"
In an attemptto explore possibleways in which the Universityof NottinghamSchoolof Education might support first language development, researchwas carriedout with groupsof community languageteacherstn 1997-98.Thesewere largely teacherswho work in supplementaryeducation, i.e. Saturdayor eveningschoolsrun on a voluntary basisfor specificlinguistic communities,with the a i m o f t e a c h i n g t h o s e l a n g u a g e s( a n d i n s o m e cases,e.g. the Urdu school,aspectsof cultureand religion). As the aim was to define real needsby creating an environmentwhere the open exchange of opinionswould be facilitated,it was decidedto r u n s e p a r a t eg r o u p d i s c u s s i o n s ,o n e f o r t h e supplementaryschool coordinatorsand two for the language teachers.In each of the language teachergroups there were fifteen teachersfrom a rangeof community schools.In the coordinators' meeting there were thirteen participants a rangeof languages(Gujerati,Hindi, representing Polish,Punjabi,Ukrainian and Urdu), and including a representativefrom the Muslim EducationTrust. In each of the groups,the following stimulus questionswere used:
.
the existenceof an advisorwith responsibility for communitylanguages,as well as a support group
The situation,however,had changedover the last ten years due to a range of nationaland local policy thanges. In 1997 alone, financial support had been cut by 40o/o,threateningthe survival of t h e c o m m u n i t y s c h o o l s .T h e n u m b e r o f G C S E examinationsavailable in community languages had been reduced(Ukrainianhad beenwithdrawn in 1996,Arabic was underthreat,Hindi had never existed). The cost for entering pupils for GCSE examinationsin these languageswas no longer coveredif they weretaughtoutsidethe mainstream school (as had becomethe norm apart from a few exceptions). 2.
Status of community languages
It was felt very strongly that the status of community languageswas very low, leading to a fear that childrenwould not wish to maintainthese languagesand, indeed, that they may associate the low statuswith their own cultural heritage. In order to enhancethe status it was felt that they shouldfeaturemuch more in mainstreameducation, a n d t h a t o p p o r t u n i t i e sn e e d e d t o b e f o u n d t o discusswhy community languagesare important. Thoughcoordinatorsbelievedthat mainstreaming was not possible for all languages,nevertheless they wanted the most widely spoken languages (Urdu and Punjabi) to be taught in the mainstream, w i t h o t h e r s b e i n g s u p p o r t e di n s u p p l e m e n t a r y schools.(Teachersfelt that all languagesshould be offered in mainstreamschools,and suggested 1 Would you like to see community languages that schools should work together in clustersto facilitate this provision. They felt that m o r e i n m a i n s t r e a ms c h o o l so r s h o u l d t h e y s u p p l e m e n t a r ys c h o o l s s h o u l d e x i s t o n l y f o r mainly be taught in supplementaryschools? y ounger children.) Where taught in the 2 Would you like children to be taught some it was also felt that they shouldbe on mainstream, other subjectsthrough the community language? par European languages,and offered to all with a 3 Wouldyou like moremonolingualEnglish-speaking t he monolingualEnglish p u p i l s , i n c l u d i n g children to learn community languages? speakers.They should not, however, be offered as an alternative to Europeanlanguages,since all These questions provoked a great deal of pupils must be able to learn these languagesif discussion.In fact, the need on the part of the to haveaccessto the benefitsofthe Single they are participantsto discusstheir needswith eachother and mobility. It was felt rather that they Market as well as with outsiderscameacrossvery strongly should be offered in addition to European throughout the meetings. languages.Peripateticteachingshouldbe avoided where possible,and communitylanguageteachers Responses in the mainstreamneededto be paid on the same scaleas other teachers.Qualificationsobtainedin I n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n st h e f o l l o w i n e t h e s e l a n g u a g e ss h o u l d b e a c c e p t e da s v a l i d themesemerged: s t a t e m e n t so f a c h i e v e m e n t r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g perceived by employers and educational 1. Erosion of local and national supportfor institutions as easy options and thereforenot of community languages equivalenceto other qualifications. Coordinators in particular were keen to defend previouslocal educationpolicies which had been very supportive of community languages. Strategiesmentionedwere: . financial support for supplementaryschools . bilingual instructors offering mother-tongue s u p p o r ti n t h e t r a n s i t i o ns t a g e
3.
Needfor coordination
Although some mainstream secondary headteachersin Nottingham had been trying to r e i n t r o d u c e c o m m u n i t y l a n g u a g e si n t o t h e i r schools, it was felt that there was a need to L a n g u o g e L e o r n i n gJ o u r n o l
POLICY INMULTILINGUAL UK LANGUAGE
coordinate the demand for this support. The communitiesthemselveshave a responsibilityfor making this known, but it was felt that this was hindered by the difficulties of getting together s i n c e n o f o r u m e x i s t e d .P a r t i c i p a n t ss u g g e s t e d that there is a definite need for an individual to lobby on their behalf,and to enablethem to act as a coherentpressuregroup. 4.
Supplementaryschools
Thereis still a needfor supplementary schoolsfor all community languages,even those languages which should by their numbersbe representedin mainstreameducation,since in some casessuch schoolsfulfil a specialrole in the transmissionof religious and cultural values (in much the same way as do the traditionalSundayschools).In fact, the coordinatorssuggestedthat their role should be enhanced,that they shouldbe helpingbilingual pupils to preparefor GCSEs in other subjectsby giving them a graspofthese subjectsthroughtheir own language. It was felt, however, that the statusof these schools needed to be enhanced through considerationof the professional nature of the teachers.According to the coordinators,many of t h e s e t e a c h e r sa r e v o l u n t a r y a n d u n q u a l i f i e d , u s i n g p o o r t e a c h i n g m e t h o d s .T h i s c o u l d b e improved through programmes of professional development,offering routes to qualified teacher status(which would, in any case,be essentialif they were eventually to teach in mainstream schools),and coursesin classroommanagement, record keeping etc. Also, support groups would be able to work together on teaching content and materials,which teachersfelt to be inadequateboth in range and quality. There was indeed great willingness from all the groups to align their teaching to the National Curriculum requirements and to learn new methods from modern language teachers.To this end, it was also suggestedthat c l o s e l i n k s w i t h m a i n s t r e a ms c h o o l sw o u l d b e beneficialto both themselvesand their learners. Sheffield: The Multilingual City Project This sectionexamineslanguagepolicy in Sheffield, a city forty miles north of Nottingham,where a prioritisation of linguistic issues has been maintainedin recentyears.The emergingthemes are then analysedboth in the light of literature and researchon the issuesand in the light of the above perceivedneedsin Nottingham,where no such prioritisationexists. S h e f f i e l d ' sM u l t i l i n g u a l C i t y P r o j e c t w a s launchedin January 1994 at a major conference attendedby representativesof many significant bodies,suchas the City Council, the Training and EnterpriseAgency, further and higher education i n s t i t u t i o n sa n d l o c a l s c h o o l s .C o o r d i n a t e db y SUMES (SheffieldUnified Multicultural Education
No23Summer 2001
Service), which is part of the Educatron Departmentof the City Council, its roots could be traced back to a commitment to the promotion of linguisticdiversity,which six yearspreviouslyhad been expressedin its Curriculum Policy in the f o l l o w i n gw a y : Bihngual children are specially fortunatein the breadth and richness of their linguistic h e r i t a g e , a n d t h e i r p r e s e n c ei n S h e f f i e l d schoolsis a benefitto all pupils.The languages of all our children should thereforebe affirmed, m a i n t a i n e da n d d e v e l o p e d( S h e f f i e l d L E A , I 988). The aim of the initiative was to promote languages and bilingualismat every level ofeducationacross the city, and its focus can be seenin its definition of a multilingual city, which appearsfrequently in the documentation: A multilingual city is one where different languages become part of the organic developmentof the communityas a whole. It is where these languagesare spoken at home, in public and in education. Crucially, it is where they are on offer to be learnt and used by anyone interestedor fired by them - as well as by those who are historically and culturally bound by them. The range of languagesand cultures serye to widen our daily experiences and thinking. They also lead to new ways of living so that we feel more stimulated and fulfilled. By knowing another language we acquire a key with which to open our parochial cages.Here are the beginningsof a new and more profound culture and look of the city (SUMES,1994:7). The Project thus launcheda comprehensiveattack o n t r a d i t i o n a l a n t i - f o r e i g n l a n g u a g ea t t i t u d e s , "fluency in another language emphasisingthat brings increasedknowledge, culfural engagement, and extensionof thinking" (SUMES, 1994:8). One intended outcome was that every young person living in Sheffield would be bilingual in ten years' time, proficient in both English and any European, Creole, Asian or African language (a rather ambitious aim but one which was laudable and supportedby all parties at the time as part of their 'vision' of the future). In order to achievethis, the city establisheda city-wide partnershipof teachers, researchers,volunteers,local governmentworkers a n d b u s i n e s sp e o p l e ( S U M E S , 1 9 9 5 ) . B y encouraging cooperation between the different sectors,coordinatinginformation and promoting developments,it was hopedthat the initiative would exert a powerful influence on attitudes towards bilingualism.Thus, for example,in the economic field, languageprojectshave been set up with local businessand industry, and bilingual speakersare encouragedto find ways of using their linguistic
rrA
multilingual city is one where different languages become part of the organic development of the community as a whole"
"the need for all individuals to maintain their first l a n g u a g ei n any way which seems to be appropriate, for linguistic, educational, psychological and social rgasons"
skills to earn money. In the world of education, information on bilingualism and language provision is being coordinated,internationallinks a r e b e i n g e n c o u r a g e da n d s c h o o l s a r e b e i n g identifiedas centresof multilingual excellence.In recognitionof the complex natureof bilingualism ( w h i c h i n p o l i c y s t a t e m e n t sw a s u s e d i n a n uncritical manner), a research group was establishedbringingtogetheracademicsfrom both of the universitiesin Sheffield. Complementaryto this strategy is the focus on improving opportunities to learn minority community languages(i.e. those languagesother than English, which are used by inhabitants of Sheffieldin their everydaylives). The importance of "coordinatingand mobilising resourcesof the voluntary and formal sectors(including language schools, state schools, the College, the u n i v e r s i t i e s ,t h e c o m m e r c i a ls e c t o r ,e m b a s s y classes)in promoting secondlanguagelearning" (SUMES, 1994: 9) is centralto the Project. Although it is stressedthat ideally community l a n g u a g e ss h o u l d b e t a u g h t i n s t a t e s c h o o l s a l o n g s i d e t h o s e l a n g u a g e sw h i c h a r e m o r e traditionally taught (French,Germanand Spanish), in order to avoid them being marginalised,it is r e c o g n i s e dt h a t t h e v o l u n t a r y s e c t o r i s a l s o providing vital languageservicesand that such provisionmay in fact be highly desiredby the local communities.Therefore the Project offers support to thesesupplementaryschoolsvia stablefunding, teachertrainingand coordinationofresourcesand equipment. In addition, the recognition of achievementsin supplementaryschoolsby state s c h o o l st h r o u g h t h e i r R e c o r d so f A c h i e v e m e n t a n d a c c r e d i t a t i o no f b i l i n g u a l s k i l l s a c h i e v e d outside the state sector is also seen as essential to the promotion of community languages.
DISCUSSION Multilingualism and the individual The Multilingual City Project clearly recognises the need for all individuals to maintain their first language in any way which seems to be appropriate, for linguistic, educational, p s y c h o l o g i c a la n d s o c i a l r e a s o n s ,a s w e l l a s t o have accessto English in order to be able to play a full and active part in society,and it thus aspires to the promotion of equal opportunitiesas describedby Spolsky (1986: 189). It reflects the conclusionsof researchin a variety of contexts w h i c h s u g g e s tt h a t d e v e l o p m e n to f t h e f i r s t language is an important factor for successful learning(e.g. Garcia, 1988;Mace-Matluck,1990; 1982).This is not to Tikunoff and Vasquez-Faria, on this issue.There imply that thereis a consensus are examples of researcherscarrying out metaa n a l y s e so f t h e r e s e a r c hi n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h p a t t e r n s o f r e s e a r c h( L a m b , 1 9 9 7 ) . S k u t n a b b Kangas(1986),for example,has arguedthat many of the opponents of minority language
developmentcome from the majority group whilst for the advocatesthe opposite is true, and Baker and de Kanter (1981) exploredlinks betweenthe researchfindings and the researchmethodologies used. The Sheffieldproject also rejectsany idea that maintafning the first languagewill interfere with the acquisition of English. It also rejects the perception that bilingualism itself is a problem ( s u c h p e r c e p t i o n sh a v e t e n d e d t o r e f e r t o t h e languagesof ex-coloniesof Britain ratherthan to of someof Britain's the moreprestigiouslanguages (Lamb, 43), with the 1984: Europeanneighbours grows up bilingually with result that a child who English and German is consideredto be fortunate w h e r e a s a c h i l d w h o s p e a k sU r d u a s w e l l a s English is often perceivedas having a problem). Multilingualism and society A s a l r e a d y s t a t e d , t h e d e b a t e s u r r o u n d i n gt h e p r o m o t i o n ( o r n o t ) o f l a n g u a g e si n s o c i e t y i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o s o c i o l o g i c a lt h e o r i e sw h i c h attempt to offer a framework for the discussionof power relationshipsbetween different ethnic or cultural groups, referring to such phenomena as a s s i m i l a t i o n ,i n t e g r a t i o n ,m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m a n d cultural pluralism.It can thus be claimedthat the majority group's attitudestowards bilingualism or cultural pluralism are reflected in and perpetuated by the role the minority community languagesare allowed to play in the education system. Many studieshave attemptedto devisetypologiesaimed at facilitating an analysis of the relationship between bilingualism, educationand society. Mackey (19'72),for example, covered in a very comprehensiveway all aspects from the monolingual education of bilingual children in monolingual societiesto the bilingual education of monolingualchildrenin bilingual societies.Tosi thattherearetwo major (1984: 137-147)recognised orientationsin the various categories,each with particular implications for the individual and for society as a whole (namely a compensatory/ t r a n s i t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n ,r e s u l t i n g i n a l i m i t e d transitional bilingualism for the child and assimilation for the minority group; and language " b a l a n c e db i l i n g u a l m a i n t e n a n c ep r o d u c i n g c o o r d i n a t ec o m p e t e n c e "i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d cultural pluralism in societyas a whole). What is clear then is that bilingual educationis a complex phenomenon,and that it can representa range of experienceseitheraimedsolely at bilingual children or including the majority monolingualgroup. Returning to the Sheffield Multilingual City Project, it can be seen from the statementsquoted abovethat this initiativeis not only aiming to build on the bilingualismwhich is alreadyevident in a significant proportion of the population, but is also intended to promote community languages " o u t s i d e t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l ,r e g i o n a l a n d e t h n i c b o u n d a r i e s ,a n d m a k e t h e m a v a i l a b l e t o a l l Longuoge LeorningJournol
UK POLICY INMULTILINGUAL LANGUAGE (SUMES,1994:8). Despitesomewhat Sheffielders" "is bound to idealistic claims that such a policy reduceracism" (SUMES, 1994: 7), the Project is clearlynot falling into the trap ofseeing the issues as oneswhich solely concernthe minority groups, w h o a r e s o m e t i m e sv i e w e d a s i f t h e y h a v e a pathologicalproblem which needs solving. The Project rejects such deficit theories and addresses the issueswith policies targetedat society as a w h o l e . I t t h u s c o r r e s p o n d st o t h e n o t i o n o f educationfor a pluralist society,which requires change from all members of society and not just from minority groups.According to this theory, its commitment to raising the statusof local minority languagescould result not only in raised self-concepts amongst speakers of these l a n g u a g e sb u t a l s o e n c o u r a g em a j o r i t y g r o u p pupils and parentsto chooseto learn one of them in addition to or insteadof one of the more usual European languages.This accords with the view taken by the NCLE Working Party on Minority Community Languagesthat (...) the extensionof opportunitiesfor minority l a n g u a g el e a r n i n g b e y o n d t h e c o m m u n i t i e s themselveswould increaselinks betweenthem and the wider society,fostering societal multiculturalismas well as providing English L1 speakerswith opportunitiesto broadentheir p e r s o n a ll i n g u i s t i c a n d c u l t u r a l h o r i z o n s i n directions relevant to contemDorarvBritain (NCLE,1984).
Partnership The idea of partnershipbetween the various agentsof the majority and minority groups is one which is frequently mooted in the documentation. A paperdelivered atthe l99l conferenceorganised by the Project, for example, refers to partnership between the Association of Sheffield Community L a n g u a g eS c h o o l s a n d t h e M u l t i l i n g u a l C i t y P r o j e c t i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n to f t h e p r o p o s e d Multimedia Community LanguageCentre,and goes "will continue with its natural on to say that it allies in the black community, SUMES, the e d u c a t i o n a li n s t i t u t i o n s o f S h e f f i e l d ( i . e . T h e SheffieldCollege,the two local Universities,the state and voluntary schools,community centres and groups...),businesseducationpartners,and funders(i.e.TEC, ESF,SRB,The NationalLottery, CharitablT e r u s t s . . . )("A S C L S ,1 9 9 7 ) . T h e d i s c o u r s eo f p a r t n e r s h i pi s o n e w h i c h h a s beenincreasinglyappliedin the policy arenaover the last twenty years. One example is the restructuringofurban policy in order to introduce an enterpriseculture into an area which had most recently been in the hands of the local authorities with their perceived bureaucratic, none n t r e p r e n e u r i a sl t y l e . A l t h o u g h t h e r h e t o r i c
2001 No23Summer
appealsto a public demand to be consulted,the term 'partnership' is ambiguous and In her article examiningthe underconceptualised. process of partnership in uJban regeneration p o l i c y , H a s t i n g s ( 1 9 9 6 ) a r g u e st h a t , d e s p i t e a political consensusin the UK that a multi-sectoral partnership approach is essential, it is vital to e s t a b l i s hw h e t h e r t h e m a n i f e s t a t i o n so f t h i s concept are dominated by an agenda of privatisationand centralisation,or whether they really represent a commitment to greater democracy.For Hastings,partnershipoffers the potential to forge innovative policies if it encouragesthe possibility of combining different p e r s p e c t i v e sr a t h e r t h a n j u s t r e s o u r c e s ,a n d t o increasedemocracyif all partiesare in a position to affect decision-making,rather than just those who provide the main funding. Her research reveals,however, that differencesin attitudes and power can mean that the different parties can have very different understandingsof and aspirations for partnership,and that the way to find out is through qualitative researchcarried out with all stakeholders.Clearly such researchneeds to be carried out with the various partners in the Sheffield Project if the commitment is to real representationof the minority groups.
"society Supplementary schools and empowerment C u m m i n s ( 1 9 8 6 ) h a s d e v e l o p e da t h e o r e t i c a l framework which connectsbilingual programmes to the notions of empowermentand disablement, suggestingthat society representsa conflict of interestsbetweenthose in power and those who are disempowered.This is done by examining four major characteristicsof schools:the extentto which m i n o r i t y l a n g u a g ep u p i l s ' h o m e l a n g u a g ea n d culture are incorporated into the school curriculum; the extent to which minority communitiesare encouragedto participatein their children's education;the extent to which active learning is encouraged;and the extent to which the assessment of minority languagepupils avoids locating problemsin the pupil and addressesthe social and educationalsystemitself. He thus sees possible outcomes ranging from additive bilingualismto subtractive,from collaborationand communityparticipationto social exclusion,from a n i n t e r a c t i v ec u r r i c u l u m t o a t r a n s m i s s i o n orientatedcurriculum, and from assessmentand diagnosiswhich advocatechangesto the system as a whole to those which leeitimise the status quo. If, on a societallevel, it is similarly recognised that social changeoccurs within a conflict paradigm(since those in power have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, whereas the "oppressed",to use a Freirian term, require change),rather than in a harmonious, consensual way (for a fuller discussionof this, seeLamb, 2000),
represents a conflict of interests between those in power and those who are disempowered"
T LAMB
"the need for a continuous critical examination of the underlying assumptions"
then it becomesclearthat interventionistmeasures are needed for the minority groups to be empoweredand to facilitate educational,social, economicand political change.Empowerment,i.e. "the processof acquiringpower,or the processof transition from lack of control to the acquisition of control over one's own life and immediate environment"(Delgado-Gaitanand Trueba, 1992: 138), can be seen as essentialif the situation of the linguisticminoritiesis to be transformed.That this needsto happenat a local level is reinforced by Saunders'(1981)theoryofthe State,which sees a distinct difference in function between the State and the local State. For Saunders.the former is responsiblefor major economicpolicieswhich are protected from the influences of local political forces. The local State,on the other hand, is where the competitive,more democraticsectorof politics operatesand, as such, is more able to respondto l o c a l n e e d st h r o u g h s o c i a l p o l i c y ( t h o u g h t h i s u n d e r e s t i m a t e tsh e i n c r e a s i n g l yi n t e r v e n t i o n i s t r o l e p l a y e d b y t h e G o v e r n m e n ti n s o m e s o c i a l policy areas).Similarly,Castells,in a development o f h i s M a r x i s t s t r u c t u r a l i s tt h e o r i e s , h a s a l s o spokenabout the potential for urban social groups to empowerthemselvesat a local level, albeit within t h e c o n s t r a i n t so f a n o v e r a l l c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y (Castells,1977,1978, 1983). The notion that empowermentis something in which the disempoweredcan be actively involved r a t h e r t h a n s o m e t h i n gw h i c h t h e y p a s s i v e l y receivefrom thosein power is relatedto resistance t h e o r i e s w h i c h a d d r e s st h e i s s u e o f a g e n c y . 'war of position', offers Gramsci,in his idea of the some insights into the ways in which the subordinateclassesmay overcome the hegemony of the dominant classes: A social group can, and indeed must, already exerciseleadership(i.e. be hegemonic)before winning governmentalpower (this indeed is one of the principal conditionsfor the winning of suchpower)(Gramsci,197l:207). Gramsci's strategy therefore involved the establishmentof working-classorganisationsas the foundations of a new culture, which would then be in a position to confront bourgeois hegemony in a war of position. The key is the outsidethe establishmentof a counter-hegemony stateschoolsystem,sinceteachers("intellectuals" in Gramscianterms) from the subordinateclasses who are invited into the state education system are in fact only there to legitimate the dominant i d e o l o g y , a n d a s s u c h c e a s et o b e o r g a n i c a l l y linked to their classof origin (Gramsci,197l: 12). Such arguments,it could be maintained,have r e s o n a n c ew i t h t h e d e b a t e o v e r t h e p l a c e o f community languages.A Gramscianview would regardthe positioningof community languagesin the mainstreameducationsystemvery warily. It
10
w o u l d a r g u e t h a t t h e s e l a n g u a g e sc a n o n l y maintain their place in societyfrom a position of strengthbuilt up outside the state system,since otherwisethey will be at the whim of the majority power.'Thiswould seemto supportthe role of the supplementaryschools,organisedby the minority groups themselves. As we have seen, the Sheffield Multilingual City Project is promoting the teaching of community languagesin stateschoolsin order to a v o i d m a r g i n a l i s a t i o n a, p o s i t i o n w h i c h i s supported by theories of education for cultural pluralism. The Gramscianargumentsare useful, however,as a reminderthat this may in itself prove i n a d e q u a t eo r u n d e s i r a b l et o s o m e c o m m u n i t y groups,and that the possibility of supplementary provision organised by the communities themselvesmust be maintainedas an option. The Sheffield Project does in fact cover this in its support of the voluntary sector.What must remain undercritical scrutiny,however,is the way in which such support is given, and whether it is offered conditionally or not. The experienceof e m p o w e r m e n to r c o n t r o l m u s t b e c o n s t a n t l y monitored from the viewpoint of the minority g r o u ps . Sheffield
Multilingual
City
Project:
Gonclusion T h e s o c i o l i n g u i sH t a l l i d a y( 1 9 7 8 : 1 6 3 )d e s c r i b e s in the following way: city the multilingual A c i t y i s n o t a s p e e c hc o m m u n i t y i n t h e c l a s s i c a ls e n s e .I t s i n h a b i t a n t so b v i o u s l y d o not all talk to each other. They do not speak alike; andfurthermorethey do not all meanalike. But a city is an environmentin which meanings are exchanged.In this processconflicts arise, symbolic conflicts which are no less real than c o n f l i c t s o v e r e c o n o m i c i n t e r e s t ;a n d t h e s e conflicts containthe mechanismof change(...) The city dweller's picture of the universe is not, in the typical instance,one of order and constancy.But at leastit has - or could have,if allowed to - a compensatingquality that is of some significance; the fact that many very different groups of people have contributed to the making of it. The relationshipswhich arecentralto the Sheffield Multilingual City Project can be viewed as a r e s p o n s et o s u c h i d e a s , e n c o u r a g i n ga f o r u m "Subjectsmeet in where, in Freire's words, cooperationin order to transformthe world" (1996: 148). The initiative is an interventionistmeasure designedto empowerthe linguistic minoritiesand encouragechangein society as a whole. As has already been mentioned above, h o w e v e r , t h e n e e d f o r a c o n t i n u o u sc r i t i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n si s Longuoge LeorningJournol
L A N G U A GPEO T I C IYNM U L T I L I N G UUAKL
paramount.The voice of the minority needsto be listenedto, and allowed to speakfor itself. Only such an approachcan offer a principled way of reflecting on the progressof the Sheffield Multilingual City Project, and ensuring that the policies continueto correspondto the needsand desiresof the communitiesthemselves.
bilingnl education. A review o.f the literature. Washington D.C.: Office of Technical and Analytic Systems, US Department of Educatton Baker, P. and Eversley, J. (2000) Multilingual capital. London: Battlebridge Castells,M. (t977) The urban question. London: Edward
C O N C L U D I NR GE M A R K S
Arnold. " E m p o w e r i n g m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s :A Cummins, J. (1936) framework for intervention." ln Harvard Educational R e v i e w5 6 ( l ) , l 8 - 3 6 . D e l g a d o - G a i t a nC , . a n d T r u e b a ,H . ( 1 9 9 1 ) C r o s s i n gc u l t u r a l borders: education for immigrant.families in America
Returning to the Nottingham research,the above principles of voice and empowermentinformed the initial meetingswith the coordinatorsand teachers. The motivation was to enable the university to explore ways of offering the type of supportwhich the communitiesthemselveswanted, rather than s o m e t h i n gw h i c h s e e m e dt h e o r e t i c a l l y ' c o r r e c t ' . their views with ln fact,the communitiesexpressed conviction and consensus,and had clearly been in need of the opportunity to come together to do so. It is interestingto reflect on the close of theseviews with the principles correspondence the Sheffield Multilingual City underpin which would suggest that similar w h i c h Project, would be appropriatein Nottingham. interventions I n c o n c l u s i o n ,t h e r e f o r e ,t h e N o t t i n g h a m researchhas highlighted the need for a national policy relating to languages in the UK, e n c o m p a s s i n gd i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s ( m o d e r n f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e sa n d c o m m u n i t y l a n g u a g e s ) , different phasesof languagelearning, and teacher education and supply. This national policy needs, however, to be an enabling and flexible policy which neverthelessrequires the development of local responsesappropriateto local needs. In a 1984studyofpolicy relatingto linguisticdiversity. I describedthe innovativelanguagepolicy which c o u l d b e f o u n d i n m a n y a r e a s ,b u t f o c u s e d particularly on the Inner London Education Authority (Lamb, 1984).However,the study also revealed that next to these areasthere were many children in authoritieswith no policy. The current s t u d y s u g g e s t st h a t s u c h i n c o n s i s t e n c i e so f provisionstill exist,evenbetweencitieswhich are linguisticallycomparableand even at a time when there is far greater governmental intervention in e d u c a t i o nt h a n t h a t w h i c h e x i s t e d p r i o r t o t h e Education Reform Act of 1988 and subsequent policies.It is to be hopedthat there will be a positive responseto the demandsof the Nuffield Inquiry in order to ensure that the needs of all children will be taken into account and that appropriateprovision will no longer depend on where a child happensto live.
BI B L I O G R A P H Y Association of Sheffield Community Language Schools (1997) Multimedia Community Language Centre Project: A mere vision or a reality in the making? A brief for the Multilingual City Conference, May 1997. Baker. K. and de Kanter, A. (1981) Effectivenessof
H
No23Summer2001
Arnold. Castells, M. (1978) City, class and power. London: Macmillan. Castells,M. (1983) The city and the grassroots. London: Edward
New York: Falmer. Freire, P (1996) Pedagogl' of the oppressed' Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 'Attributes of effective schoolsfor Garcia, E.E. (1988) language minority students', in Education and Urhan Society.20(4): 387-398 Gillborn, D. (1995) Racismand antiracism in real schools: theory, policy, practice. Buckingham: OUP Graddol, D. (1997) The future of English? London: British Council 'Will English be enough?', in Where Graddol, D. (1998) are we going with languages? Consultative report oJ the Nuffield Languages Inquiry. London: Nuffield Foundation:24-33 G r a m s c i , A . ( 1 9 7 1 ) S e l e c t i o n sf r o m p r i s o n n o t e b o o k s . N e w York: International Publishers Gundara, J.S. (2000) Interculturalism, education and inclusion. London: Paul Chapman Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as social semiotic. London: E. Arnold. "Unravelling the processof'partnership' Hastings, A. (1996) in urban regeneration policy" in Urban Studies, 33(3)' 253-268. ILEA Research and Statistics Branch (1989) 1989 Language Census. London: ILEA. J o r g e n s e n ,J . N . a n d H o l m e n , A . ( e d s . ) T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of successive bilingualism in school-age children (Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism no.27). Copenhagen, Denmark: Royal Danish School of Educational Studies 'Language issues in multicultural Lamb, T.E. (1984) B r i t a i n : n e e d s a n d r e s p o n s e s 'A s t u d y o f l i n g u i s t i c diversity with special reference to London'. M.A. Dissertation, London: King's College London. 'The multilingual city', in Jorgensen, Lamb, T.E. (1997) J.N. and Holmen, A. (eds.) The developmentof successivebilingualism in school-age children (CopenhagenStudies in Bilingualism no. 27). Copenhagen, Denmark: Royal Danish School of Educational Studies: 89-96 'Respondingto cultural and linguistic Lamb, T.E. (1999a) diversity in the primary school', in Bertaux, P., Garcier' F. and Kerviel, C. (eds) La dimension europienne dans I'enseignement: enjeux, rtalitis et perspectives. N a n c y , F r a n c e : P r e s s e sU n i v e r s i t a i r e s d e N a n c y ,
2 s- 3 6
' L o c a t i n g t h e i s s u e s :u r b a n e d u c a t i o n Lamb, T.E. (1999b) a s c o n s e n s u so r c o n f l i c t ' , i n W e b s i t e o f t h e T h e m a t i c Network on Teacher Education in Europe (http:ll tntee.umu.se/lisboa/) 'Reconceptualising disaffection - issues Lamb, T.E. (2000) of power, voice and learner autonomy', in Walraven, G . , P a r s o n s ,C . , V a n V e e n , D . a n d D a y , C . ( e d s ) ( 2 0 0 0 ) Combating social exclusion through educatlon. Louvain' Belgium and Apeldoorn, Netherlands: Garant, 99t t 5 'Languagesspeakvolumes for global business', Land, A. (2000) in Baker, P. and Eversley, I. Multilingual capital. London: Battlebridge: 7l Mace-Matluck,B.J. (1990)'The effective schools
';ilt" n""o ioi a national policy relating to l a n g u a g e si n the UK"
T LA[48
movement: implications for Title Vll and bilingual e d u c a t i o n p r o j e c t s ' , i n A n n u a l C o n . f e r e n c eJ o u r n a l NABE t98tJ-89 B3-95 Mackey, W.F. (1972) Bilingual education in a binational scftool. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. " M u l t i r a c i a l e d u c a t i o ni n B r i t a i n : f r o m Mullard, C. (1982) a s s i m i l a t i o nt o c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m " , i n T i e r n e y , J . ( e d . . ) Race, migration and schooling. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston National Congress on Languagesin Education (1984) Minority community languages in school. NCLE Papers and Reports 4. London: CILT. Nottinghamshire Education Authority (1996) Section II /unded work in Nottinghamshire schools: information, Nottinghamshire County Council The Nuffield Languages Inquiry (2000) Languages: the next generation. London: The Nuffield Foundation Pagliero, H. and Keenan, B. (2000a) Community LanguagesBulletin. Issue 6, Spring 2000. Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research Pagliero, H. and Keenan, B. (2000b) Community Languages Bulletin. Issue 7. Autumn 2000. Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research Sarup, M. (1991) Education and the ideologies of racism. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham. S a u n d e r s ,K . ( 1 9 9 8 ) ' M o d e r n l a n g u a g e si n c r i s i s ? ' , i n Language Learning Journal, l8'. 63-67
"Community power, urbanmanagerialism Saunders,P. ( l98l ) and the'local state"'in Harloe,M. (1981) New perspectives in urban change and conflict. London: Heinemann. Sheffield LEA (1988) Policy statement.Sheffield: Education Department. 'Who wants to change what S k u t t n a b b - K a n g a s ,T . ( 1 9 8 6 ) paradigms in minority education', and why conflicting in Spolsky B. Language and education in multilingual s e l l i r ? g s . C l e v e d o nU , K: Multilingual Matters Spolsky, B. (1986) Language and education in multilingual settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. S U M E S ( 1 9 9 4 ) S h e J J ' i e l dM u l t i l i n g u a l C i t y c o n J b r e n c e report. Sheffield: Education Department. SUMES (1995) SheJJield Multilingual City 2: conference report. Sheffield: Education Department. SUMES (1997) Shel|ield The Multilingual City 4: conJbrence Report. Sheffield: Education Department 'Successful T i k u n o f f , W . J . a n d V a s q u e z - F a r i a J, . A . ( 1 9 8 2 ) instruction for bilingual schooling', in Peabody Journal of Education, 59(4): 234-271 Tosi, A. (1984) Immigration and bilingual education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. T r o y n a , B . ( 1 9 9 3 ) R a c i s m a n d e d u c a t i o n .B u c k i n g h a m : OUP Troyna, B. and Carrington, B. (1990) Education, racism and reform. London: Routledge
H+EF*F
(AssociateProfessor)
*t
3 : s-. r ' 2 ,
t'trtxu
Friday13 July Session 1 Anna Proudfoot, U s i n gt h e I n t e r n e t
Ff,ilOnt*
-^+T',Bko
:Ft U 7A&al.LTA*ttbD.. ffiTItr)
. *:k#o7 )7w*aT Hf*offiefqatr n&2Jttt},#6. t*E . /(*EEet;tt,\ t/^/t o)lFilrf?*6;e. . C' HfffUt&btTt\6; . ) -f -2v/ tt )vgtrrt>6ae;e.
(Frrabtft) S*l;l0f 6 : I f*. Julieo'Reilly Bemail:
[email protected] +l$l liglf 6 ;, & l*. ColleenBonie Femail:
[email protected]
Session 2 Ernesto Macaro & Marina Esposlfo Aiardo W o r k s h o p :C o m e s p i e g a r el a g r a m m a t i c a
Saturday14 July Session3 3.1 A.MariaSheikh& AdalgisaSerio il cinema attraverso L'italiano or . 2 MartinL. McLaughlin Teaching Calvino 4
1
4.2
DerekAust of the EdexcelAS/Alevel Thenewspecifications examinations or CaroleShepherd T h e n e w s p e c i f i c a t i o nosf t h e A Q A G C S E l t a l i a n
E^+o$6nfiH,
http/Arwv.cantertury.ac.rz^ C t €.
(fifl) 2001+7F|31 B.
12
'150 Rugby, CV213HN Tenace, FordetailscontacttheALLoffice, Railway 544149 01788 546443Fax:01788 Telephone: or emailusat
[email protected]
Longuoge LeorningJournol
