English as a Second Language in Great Britain
English as a Second Language in Great Britain
Assignment Three
Education in Great Britain today has a central hot topic: inclusion. Following the recent growth in immigrant movement towards the UK, British schools are having to implement a broader spectrum of resources than ever before, in order to meet the ever-growing demand of students with English as a second language and it is estimated that there are around 500,000 students with English as a second language in the British educational system today (Barwell, 2004, p329). In Britain, this is known as ‘EAL’ or ‘English as an Additional Language’ and it now takes precedence alongside the likes of teaching inclusively for children with learning difficulties (Brutt-Griffler & Varghese, 2004, p97). The major issue is, of course, deciphering whether the EAL child is bright but lacking in the linguistic skills to keep up with their peers or whether they are a lower-achieving student, whatever the language (Walters, 2007, p87). And, unlike in other countries, England and the rest of the UK all speak English which means that the children joining the British educational system come from a widespread array of countries and languages, meaning that British teachers are, in some cases, overwhelmed by the sheer volume of differing languages and dialects which they need to cater for.
The big push towards catering for EAL students came, in Britain, with the advent of the election of the Labour party to government in 1997. They were advocates for education that caters for all with educational standards being changed to meet the needs of “the many, not the few” (Araújo, 2007, p241). This idea was designed to meet the rising tides of EAL students as well as students with special educational needs and intended to allow education to be accessible to anyone who wished to try. Prior to this, bilingual students were not allowed to enter into mainstream schooling until their English was such that they were deemed ‘capable’ of handling an English classroom but, with this in mind, EAL students are now placed into mainstream schooling, often with only minimal English language experience (Brutt-Griffler & Varghese, 2004, p97). Their achievements, obviously, vary dramatically and have been a focus of educational research and policy since the 1970s – particularly, the impact of EAL on underachievement in specific ethnic groups such as “African-Caribbean boys and Bangladeshi and Pakistani pupils” (Walters, 2007, p88). However, the inference here seems to be that if it is only specific ethnic groups which are suffering, it might have less to do with language and more to do with cultural attitudes and differences, such as being taught by a white, female teacher, for instance, or even just a culture which takes a somewhat more laissez-faire approach to life.
It is not just the English classroom where EAL becomes a factor, and indeed, it is an issue across the school – perhaps even more notably so due to the technical language which some subjects use. A 1999 Ofsted (The Office for Standards in Education) report voiced the concern that “EAL students were under-performing in maths” but, despite this, there is very little research into why this is the case (Barwell, 2004, p329). The study, carried out by Richard Barwell (2004) focused on how EAL students dealt with arithmetic and word problems. Following a lengthy study, the findings showed that students managed to work more easily with word-based problems with the suggestion that they were able to contextualise the words more effectively (Barwell, 2004, p345). The implications of this care palpable: context and discussion is king. The wider implication of this is that by placing EAL students into English classrooms with students whose first language is English means that the EAL students will be able to function (albeit basically, in some cases) through the use of context, and that their English will gradually improve due to their need to discuss with their peers.
An issue facing many British schools now is that, whilst teachers are trying to implement inclusive techniques for EAL students, the impact of so many different languages are causing the school’s results to suffer and for their reputations to falter. One such school was Greenfield Comprehensive who, under the new Labour government initiative of ‘Fresh Start’, became Millhaven High (Araújo, 2007, p242). The school has issues concerning its bad exam results, behaviour and levels of attendance and this was worsened by the fact that the school housed around 30 different languages spoken every day (Araújo, 2007, p242). The effect of this was that the school lacked unity and the teachers were struggling to make themselves understood. It was found that these students received a varying degree of support: ten out of the fourteen EAL students in lower ability sets received support as opposed to only one of the twelve students in higher sets (Araújo, 2007, p252). The conclusion was that whilst many teachers felt that this benefitted the students, who needed it, it was actually failing to “allow them to progress at the same rate as their peers” (Araújo, 2007, p253).
The suggestion from the various studies seems to indicate that by allowing EAL students the chance to advance by themselves, teachers are actually encouraging a more independent engagement with English as a language, as well as a more natural approach to conversation and interaction with their peers. From a teacher’s perspective, however, this is a scary prospect as it means that the EAL students in their class may or may not be learning and making progress. It has been suggested on more than one occasion that the best way to approach teaching EAL students is to provide them with plenty of opportunities to experience reading, writing and speaking English as carried out by a fluent, experienced English speaker (their teacher, for instance) so as to allow them to see how it is done whilst still allowing them to pursue an independent engagement with the language (Brutt-Griffler & Varghese, 2004, p98). Therefore, inclusion in mainstream education means that EAL students are often left to their own devices in order to establish their own understanding of English.
Assignment Four
The implementation of EAL students into mainstream schooling is a relatively new addition to the British educational system as prior to the election of the Labour government in 1997, students who had English as a second language were not allowed into mainstream schools until their English was of a certain standard (Araújo, 2007, p241). The central issues which face teachers of EAL students is the question of whether they are not academically capable or whether their English is simply not sufficient enough to succeed; the question of how catering for EAL students is affecting the education of other non-EAL students; and also whether teachers should focus their attentions on such children or whether it is better to just leave them to it and make formative assessments throughout the lesson and/or unit of work (Hult, 2010, p10).
For many teachers of EAL students, they have endeavoured to strike up a common language through the means of signals, pictures and basic words. The British Department for Education (DfE) routinely publish resources and pamphlets with the aim to directing teachers in the most up to date and successful teaching pedagogies that will enable EAL students to progress. One such of these is entitled, A Language in Common: assessing English as an additional language (2000) and discusses the various approaches to assessing EAL. In truth, it does not make any revolutionary suggestions but rather suggests the implementation of assessment which does not differ dramatically from that used to assess the progress of non-EAL students. It suggests things such as: reward achievement, assessment must be based on different kinds of evidence, assess in ways that are appropriate to the child’s age and so on with the only truly differing suggestion being “be sensitive to the pupil’s first or main other language(s) and heritage cultures” (DfE, 2000, p7-8). It may be that because this document was produced in 2000 that these suggestions do not seem to be of any particular use as they are widely attributed to assessment of all ages and abilities now anyway.
On the Ofsted website, it states that good practice in the area of EAL is seen when the school is “raising the achievement of pupils for whom English is an additional language” with a view to when these pupils leave Key Stage Two (junior school) and move on to Key Stage Three (secondary school), they will “have fulfilled their potential by exceeding the national expectations in attainment in English for their age” (Ofsted, 2011). This more recent view of the treatment of EAL students seems more in line with the expectations placed upon pupils in modern, British schools. However, it is important to note that at Key Stage Two, when the students are still early on in their school careers, there is still a higher emphasis placed upon the development of reading and written English skills at a very basic level (use of basic punctuation etc.) and that the assumption is that once pupils reach Key Stage Three that they will be generally proficient in these skills. Therefore, the progress that the average EAL student is likely to make at Key Stage Two in terms of their linguistic ability is more likely to be significantly higher than that which they make at Key Stage Three and beyond.
This suggests, therefore, that secondary schools should perhaps work more closely with EAL students on their basic written and spoken English skills. With the continued rise of EAL students in schools, it would seem that more and more secondary schools are placing emphasis on differentiating between pupils who can recognise words and those who can comprehend their meaning with the ideal position for students being those who can both recognise and understand words (O’Connor, 2007, p39). However, with this problem comes the requirement for adult supervision which begins to negate the independent learning preached in other studies. Without this guidance, pupils may begin to pronounce words incorrectly, develop bad habits, and misunderstand the meaning without being able to contextualise new words on their own. Michael Farrell (1999) writes that “whole-school policies for teaching EAL should be founded on a sound knowledge of pupils’ needs and attainment” (Farrell, 1999, p70) but this in itself throws up issues of being able to afford the volume of staff required to provide such personalised provisions for students – EAL or otherwise.
Placing the issue of staffing costs to one side, the idea of personalised learning is a prominent and recent development in British schools. Outside of the EAL sphere, it places emphasis on directing questions at students who are working at a particular level and need to be pushed upwards. It relies heavily on Lev Vygotsky’s idea of the Zone of Proximal Development which discusses the idea of where the pupils currently are in their attainment as opposed to where they could be if given that extra bit of support: the space between where they are and where they could be (Cavanaugh & Kail, 2008, p149). When applied to EAL students, this theory begins to focus their learning by giving them constructive targets to work towards and because of the huge push on personalised learning across British schools, the EAL student does not feel as though they are being sectioned off and nor do the non-EAL students feel like they are not receiving the same preferential treatment. This sort of structured learning can involve them being given advice on how to progress up the levels hierarchy by improving specific aspects of their English such as their use of punctuation, spelling or the level of detail they include in their work (DfE, 2008, p4).
A large proportion of EAL provision in the UK does seem to revolve around the introduction of specialist EAL teachers/teaching assistants who will be devoted to the continued development of EAL students’ English skills. A document issued by the Training and Development Agency for Schools focuses entirely on the implementation and integration of specialist EAL workers within the school system (TDA, 2011). However, again, this contradicts the findings of academic studies which seem to strenuously stress the importance of the EAL student being given space and opportunities to develop their skills independently through contextualising and interaction with their peers (Brutt-Griffler & Varghese, 2004, p98). However, equally, it is clear that some pupils may need this extra support if the school are to fulfil the ‘good’ criteria laid out by Ofsted, as discussed earlier. It seems that, as things stand British teachers are being spread thinly and asked to do things which appear to contradict with the recommended action. However, when you consider these ideas alongside the personalised learning provisions required to be in place within schools, it is clear that EAL students may need the extra guidance or support in the pursuit of finer English skills. The big question in British schools now is exactly how much support these students should be given in order to foster their skills without removing their independent learning ability simultaneously. In this instance, schools are making more regular use of ‘scaffolding’ tasks where the students are assisted in writing sentences and paragraphs: “That is, the emphasis is on the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what’ of learning” (Brutt-Griffler & Varghese, 2004, p98). This entails the idea of going back to basics whilst still implementing new learning: a tactic which has long been used in the teaching of lower ability students, many of whom find EAL students amongst their ranks, giving rise to the continued question of whether EAL students are not academically bright or whether they simply just don’t have the competency of English to progress at the same rate as the brighter students.
It is clear that the provisions in place for EAL students within British schools are very much a work in progress. The evidence is that the majority of EAL students will be able to progress at the nationally expected rate when given the correct support but the question is how much support is enough? Since the implementation of more equal access to the British educational system in 1997, is clear that there has been an enormous amount of steps forward to better provide for EAL students but it would seem that the balance is still to be properly struck between supporting these pupils whilst still encouraging the independence and freedom awarded to those whose first language is English. It would seem that teachers are being asked to perform minor, juxtaposed miracles where they must engage EAL students and assist them to progress without actually interfering too much with their natural interactions in English. Equally, in subjects that are not strictly language-based, the EAL issue is still rampant and without very much research going into it, it is unsure how established the support in subjects such as maths and science will ever be. In short, the state of teaching English as an additional language in Great Britain is an on-going effort which sees everyone involved doing what they can but without any true, official guidance then it is hard to work to any great specifics.
References
Assignment Three
Brutt-Griffler, J. & Varghese, M. (2004). Bilingualism and language pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Araújo, M. (2007). 'Modernising the Comprehensive Principle': Selection, Setting and the Institutionalisation of Educational Failure. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(2), 241-257.
Barwell, R. (2005). Working on Arithmetic Word Problems When English is an Additional Language. British Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 329-348.
Walters, S. (2007). How Do You Know That He's Bright but Lazy? Teachers' Assessments of Bangladeshi English as an Additional Language Pupils in Two Year Three Classrooms. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 87-101.
Assignment Four
Araújo, M. (2007). 'Modernising the Comprehensive Principle': Selection, Setting and the Institutionalisation of Educational Failure. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(2), 241-257.
Brutt-Griffler, J. & Varghese, M. (2004). Bilingualism and language pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Cavanaugh, J.C. & Kail, R.V. (2007). Human Development: a life span view. California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Farrell, M. (1999). Key Issues for Primary Schools. London: Routledge.
Great Britain. Department for Educational Standards. (2000). A Language in Common: accessing English as an additional language. London: HMSO.
Great Britain. Department for Educational Standards. (2008). Making Progress in Key Stage Three English. London: HMSO.
Great Britain. Training and Development Agency. (2011). Languages in Training: English as an Additional Language. London: HMSO.
O’Connor, R.E. (2007). Teaching word recognition: effective strategies for students with learning difficulties. New York: The Guilford Press.
Ofsted. (2011). Ofsted Good Practice: English as an additional language. Retrieved from http://www.goodpractice.ofsted.gov.uk/searchSch.php?searchTerms=English+as+and+Additional+Language&show=all&sort=dateZ&search=Search
