Equal Rights to the Curriculum

Many Languages, One Message

Eithne Gallagher

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2008
• Print ISBN: 9781847690678
• eBook ISBN: 9781847695697
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Educational Policy
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

The parents of second language children are often seen but not heard in schools. This book is unique in addressing the many issues facing parents of children whose first language is different from that of the school classroom.

Drawing on teaching theory, the book provides these parents with a wealth of practical information, guidelines and checklists, enabling them to ask schools intelligent and challenging questions to test whether their children's linguistic diversity is really being properly catered for.

The theory review and best practice guidelines should be of value also to teacher trainers, teachers, administrators and policy makers. They provide an accurate analysis of important issues together with pragmatic pointers towards improving educational practice so that all children growing up in a school's multicultural society will be guaranteed what they deserve: Equal Rights to the Curriculum.

Chapter 1

Hidden and Overt Power Structures
in International Schools

Introduction

English is the medium of instruction in the vast majority of International Schools. Many of these schools have developed and grown out of what were once Overseas Schools, i. e. schools set up after the Second World War to cater for the children of businessmen from English speaking countries such as America, Canada and the United Kingdom. Many of the schools developed because of the huge resurgence of trade that brought Americans in great numbers to Europe. The curriculum used in these schools was based on various national curricula, the rationale being that children would eventually return from overseas and need to fit back into the curriculum used in their homelands.

The population of such schools is now made up largely of second language learners many of whom have never lived in America or Great Britain, nor do they plan to do so in the future. Yet many International Schools today still follow national curricula, usually American or British.

In this chapter the idea that notions and beliefs often intrinsic to national systems of education have found their way into International Education is considered. How this affects the choice of curriculum and school policies is also discussed. The main aims of this chapter are to look at:

• power structures in schools and how they may affect the ESL child;
• pedagogical choices and how they affect the second language learner;
• various programmes from the perspective of second language learners.

All of the above is discussed in the light of recent research on language acquisition.

Research and Theory

ESL teachers in International Schools have relied on theory and research related to national systems in America, Australia, Canada and Great Britain to inform them on effective teaching and planning strategies for second language learners. However, the research in national systems (e. g. Collier & Thomas, 1997) is applicable if we bear in mind three important differences:

(1) Many International Schools are not in Anglophone countries, this means that many International School children may be exposed to the language at home (maybe more than one), English at school, plus the host country language.

(2) Most International School children come from a relatively high socio-economic background. This suggests that these children may have access to more academic materials in the home. It is important to remember though that in the research carried out by Collier and Thomas (1997) the amount of formal schooling in the L1 (mother-tongue language) that students have received is the strongest predictor of how rapidly students will catch up in the L2 (English). This factor is a stronger predictor than socio-economic status or the extent to which the parents may or may not speak English.

(3) Second language learners in International Schools move to a different location and encounter a new language every three years on average. In a study involving 15 International Schools, Edna Murphy found that children moved an average of 2.2 times before the age of six.

The research and theory included in the next two chapters has been produced by world authorities in the fields of language acquisition, bilingualism, applied linguistics, cognitive psychology, social linguistics and sociology. Many of the researchers mentioned have spoken at International School conferences and ESL & MT conferences. Several have visited International Schools. These researchers and theorists have been chosen because, although their research and theory is based on national systems, they know International Schools well. They have also been chosen because they are known for not staying in the ivory towers of their universities, but rather for being present in classrooms, talking with teachers and students. They have linked their research and theory to practice therefore, as Cummins says, ‘they respond to issues and concerns articulated by educators’ (2004: 2).

Bilingualism is cross-disciplinary, being studied in linguistics, sociology, psychology and it is also studied in relationship to power and status structures and political structures in society. Bilingualism and bilingual education cannot be understood unless connected to basic philosophies and politics in society. For more on this see Baker (2003). One of the overriding aims of International Education should be to promote Additive Bilingualism, that is the adding on of a second language without detracting from the maintenance or development of the first language. Cummins (2004) cites more than 150 empirical studies carried out over the past 30 years that have reported a positive association between bilingualism and students’ linguistic, cognitive or academic growth.

Large scale research on second language learning is long overdue in International Education. None has been done to date.

Politics in ESL

The decision about how to teach second language children in International Education can be very political. When a school administrator makes a statement such as, ‘We are an International School not a bilingual one’, this is a politically loaded affirmation. Another example is, ‘English only please’. Statements such as these are not based on purely educational preferences. These speakers may have bought into the political ideal of assimilation, the process by which members of a language group lose their own language and culture, which are replaced by a different language and culture, the aim being social unity. In the USA, opponents of bilingual education support assimilation. They believe that the use of languages other than English in schools is ‘unAmerican’. To these people the majority language, English, is seen as the ‘fixer’, the tool for unifying diversity.

International School administrators who introduce English-only policies may have taken the political stance of assimilation rather than the political idea of the rights of the individual. Teachers and administrators should be aware of how politics can affect education and be above those politics, especially when political notions hinder good practice.

Ruiz (1984) proposed three basic perspectives about language in the politics of bilingual education: language as a problem, language as a right and language as a resource. These three perspectives can also be applied to language education in International Schools.

Language as a Problem

Schools that view language as a problem set out to ‘fix’ the problem. The problem is usually seen as the child’s fault. They collect data on all the things the child can’t do in English. Decisions may be taken to place the child in a remedial group. The child may be removed from a foreign language class until the problem with English is ‘cured’. Some administrators may suggest that no use of the mother-tongue is allowed until the problem of English is resolved.

A participant at the ECIS conference in The Hague, November 2005, recounted how her administrator told the staff that she was embarrassed showing new parents around the school and hearing so much of the host country language being spoken by children in the playground. She said, ‘It’s putting English people off coming to our school.’ This example shows that this administrator certainly viewed language as a problem. Rather than promoting the multicultural advantages of the school she was embarrassed by them.

Language as a Right

Rather than thinking of language as a problem it is possible to consider it as a right. Many administrators and teachers who write articles for International School magazines and journals frequently quote the United Nations (UN) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) when speaking about language and international issues. The UN, UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the then European Community declared that minority language groups have the right to maintain their language. A European Community directive (25th July 1977: 77/486/EEC) pronounced that member states should promote the teaching of the mother-tongue and culture of the country of origin in the education of migrant workers’ children. An international declaration such as this should not be ignored in an International School context where the majority of students have a first language that is not English. Schools that view language as a right are informed on the benefits of bilingualism and biliteracy and go out of their way to promote the learning of all their students’ mother-tongues.

Baker (2003) vividly describes schools in Wales where children in the past suffered discrimination. Welsh children were banned from speaking Welsh in school. If a child was caught doing so she would be forced to wear a placard around her neck. At the end of the morning and afternoon, the last child to wear the placard would be beaten with a cane.

Discrimination such as this still exists in some International Schools. The punishment has become more subtle but the long-lasting effects remain unchanged.

Recently a Grade 1 teacher explained how she had a poster in her classroom displaying the names of all the children in her class. Every time she heard the host country language spoken by a child she would put an X next to the child’s name. Young children understand very quickly that an X means wrong. Imagine the long-term effects of a small child seeing a string of X’s against her name for speaking the language she knows best. The child may feel a sense of exclusion and alienation. She may even decide to stop speaking her own language. This teacher with her silencing power may be guilty of setting the process of Subtractive Bilingualism in motion (Subtractive Bilingualism occurs when a second language is learnt at the expense of the first language, which it gradually replaces).

Another example of language discrimination in one International School in 2006 is the practice of making Grade 2 children sit on the wall at playtime if found speaking their first language, which was in fact the host country language. Apparently the rule was imposed on teachers and students by the principal (personal communication from a primary school teacher in an International School in Italy).

Children should never be punished for speaking their own language. David Graddol at the ECIS conference in Vienna 2000 made this very clear when he said, ‘it was the duty of all International School teachers to promote the learning of their students’ mother-tongues’. The sad reality is that discriminative practices are still common in some International Schools. They may be carefully hidden from inspections and accreditations, but they are well known by many teachers and students.

Language as a Resource

In a progressive International School language is viewed as a cultural and social resource for the child, for the school community and for society as a whole. Children are openly encouraged to learn through, and to think in all their languages. The languages in the classroom are many and valued equally. Teachers and students collaborate and learn from each other. Assessment procedures may reflect things children can do in English and also in their mother-tongue. There is a genuine respect for difference and a sincere attempt to develop an understanding of similarities.

Baker (2003) says that these three views, ‘language as a problem’, ‘language as a right’ and ‘language as a resource’, may not exist at a conscious level. They may be embedded in the subconscious assumptions of school planners and politicians. Those policy makers that see language as a problem often view the first language as a handicap to be overcome by the school. Increasing the amount of English is a way to overcome the problem but at the expense of the home language. They view developing bilingualism as an irrelevant or secondary aim of schooling.

Relations of Power

Cummins (2001b, 2004) argues that relations of power are at the heart of schooling outcomes. When a school’s relations of power are biased, ESL children’s identities may not be affirmed and as a result they may remain disempowered in their schooling experience. Cummins argues that the changes in pedagogy that have taken place over the last 20 years have had little impact on the achievement levels of ESL students. The reason is that schools have failed on essential issues such as securing a very positive student identity, creating good home–school links with parents as partners in their children’s education, empowering children and raising their expectations. By just teaching the given curriculum, teachers have failed to educate the whole child. This is often what the state or governing body wants – just the given curriculum. This, at its worst, is seen in the Scripted Curricula1 used in some states in America where teachers are expected to rigorously adhere to a standard script they did not create themselves.

Some mainstream teachers in International Education have been accused of teaching only the curriculum and ignoring the Who, Where and What of the child in front of them. By this I mean:

• Who is this child?
• What makes her different from the child next to her?
• Where does she come from, not only in terms of her nationality but also her education?
• What does she carry in her cultural and linguistic baggage that I as a teacher need to know in order to instruct her fully?

These teachers are not to be blamed for their attitude. The International School that hired them may have failed to provide staff development on international mindedness, and their teacher training colleges may have failed to prepare them for working with second language learners. Many teachers do not know how to deal with children who are not monolingual. They do not understand how long it takes to learn a language or how language develops in academic contexts. They are not aware of the necessity to, ‘nurture intellect and identity equally in ways that of necessity challenge coercive relations of power’ (Cummins, 2004: 6).

Why are teacher training colleges not addressing these issues? Why are administrators and teachers so ill prepared to deal with second language learners? Research on Additive Bilingualism has been around a long time, as mentioned earlier. In her editorial of the International Schools Journal in April 2003, Edna Murphy (2003: 5–6) points out:

that of the challenges faced every day in international primary schools, there are two that stand out and neither has been properly dealt with by many of our schools. These problems cluster around the fact that many of the children speak little or no English upon their arrival at school and that at least one fifth of the students are grappling with a learning disability. Where young children are involved, and where there is an overlap between these two groups, you will find the most serious problems – serious because of the lasting consequences for children if they are not properly dealt with or, even worse, ignored. Without the right kind of help early on, the child stands little chance of academic and social success in later school years. Qualified specialists know what is best done in these areas but this alone cannot make good programmes happen; they need the support of their head.

I took this point up in my op...

Table of contents

• Coverpage
• Series Editor
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Foreword
• Introduction
• 1 Hidden and Overt Power Structures in International Schools
• 2 Research, Theory and Good Practice
• 3 Third Culture Children
• 4 ESL Parents – Seen But Not Heard
• 5 Promoting Other Languages
• 6 Choosing an Effective International School for Your Child
• Appendix 1: An Internationalism Audit
• Glossary
• Further Reading
• References
• Index