Educational Studies

A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association

ISSN: 0013-1946 (Print) 1532-6993 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heds20

Language Policies and Language Certificates in

Spain—What's the Real Cost?

María Tabuenca-Cuevas

To cite this article: María Tabuenca-Cuevas (2016) Language Policies and Language
Certificates in Spain—What's the Real Cost?, Educational Studies, 52:5, 438-451, DOI:
10.1080/00131946.2016.1214914

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2016.1214914

Published online: 07 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=heds20

Download by: [Heriot-Watt University] Date: 27 September 2016, At: 21:19

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 52(5), 438–451, 2016
Copyright 
C American Educational Studies Association
ISSN: 0013-1946 print / 1532-6993 online
DOI: 10.1080/00131946.2016.1214914

Language Policies and Language Certificates

in Spain—What’s the Real Cost?
Marı́a Tabuenca-Cuevas
Universidad Católica de San Antonio, Murcia

The use of English as the lingua franca in the European Union has elevated the symbolic capital
of the language. The symbolic capital has, in turn, heightened the demand for English language
learning in the European Union, across all levels of education. These circumstances, in correlation
with the idiosyncrasies of the role of Spain within the perceived Western hegemony, have created
a particularly unique situation. The recent changes made to educational law in 2013 aggressively
promote foreign language learning at all educational levels. Language policies affect not only the
official national language, Spanish, but also coofficial regional languages. Also, an increased need
to certify language competence has arisen. National institutions in Spain cannot qualify language
competence across European borders. However, there are supranational organizations that can. These
language exams have thus filled this niche. These certificates are expensive; they expire, and double
qualifications already set in the national curricula. This situation creates a paradox in countries
like Spain where national curricula are followed to teach but certification of language levels from
supranational organizations are used to qualify in academic fields and labor markets. Consequences
of Spanish language policies are still unfolding and require thoughtful planning to anticipate the
difficulties and to sketch diverse cultures out.

Currently, learning English has become a key issue in Spain in the field of education. Recent
articles in the press, reports by private and public institutions, and information on many Web
pages constantly provide all sorts of facts and figures on the matter. For example, a recent news
article stated the fact that Spain was the biggest market for the Cambridge Advanced Exam
(CEFR C1 level) and that students in bilingual programs in Madrid could be awarded Cambridge
certificates.1 A little digging through other sources brought additional facts to light. Spain was
one of the top countries in the world for Cambridge exam centers (Cambridge English Language
Assessment, 2015b). This followed in line with another study by Education First (2015), which
showed the market increase in adult English speakers in Spain during the last few years. A survey
last year done by Cambridge English Language Assessment (2015a) revealed that 77% of the
Spanish adolescents between the ages of 16 and 24 thought that it was more important to speak
English than to have a university degree to find a job. Interestingly enough, all this information
did have one element in common: It was implied that the only way to certify English language
competence was by attaining an official certificate. Several issues quickly came to mind: Why is

Correspondence should be addressed to Marı́a Tabuenca-Cuevas, Department of Education, Universidad Católica San
Antonio, Campus de los Jeronimos, s/n, Guadalupe, 30107, Spain. E-mail: mftabuenca@ucam.edu
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 439

it suddenly more important to speak English than to study a degree? What is the value associated
with speaking English? Why do speakers have to obtain an official certificate? If Spanish is
the second most spoken language worldwide (Instituto Cervantes, 2012), with 500 million native
speakers, and if this number is still growing, what does this need for English language certification
imply? How does this affect the multilingual educational map of Spain? This article explores
how this situation is currently unfolding by delving into a series of reasons that include: the
political and educational isolation of Spain, the use of coofficial languages, the devaluation of
the Spanish language in the creation of knowledge, and the hegemony of the English language
in the European Union (EU). All of these factors have contributed inevitably to increase the
perceived need to both learn English above any other skill and to qualify English language
competence through ‘official’ certificates in Spain.

HISTORIC ISOLATION

Spain, geographically speaking, is a periphery nation in the European Union, sharing a border
with Portugal on the West and close to Africa to the South. However, in the 16th century, under the
rule of the emperor Charles V, the size and influence of the Spanish Empire was such that Bacon
(1629/2005) stated: “The sun never sets in the Spanish dominions” (22). By the late 16th century,
Spain dominated “the world’s trade routes, markets, resources, and strategic lines of resources”
(Lobell, 2005, p. 123). This did not last for long, and by the 17th century, Spain had already
lost its place as the center of Western European hegemony (Mignolo, 2000) to the contenders of
Spanish hegemony (Black, 2008; Stradling, 1994).
Although the contribution of Spain to Western hegemony is undeniable, the fact that Spain
is considered a failed empire (Linz, 1973; Rokkan, 1971) led to its marginalization within the
second phase of hegemony early on. According to Dussel (1995), although Spain was the first
modern nation “in the usual interpretation of modernity . . . Spain [was] left to one side” (as cited in
Mejı́as-López, 2009, p. 36) and had become the “first posthegemonic nation-state” (Iarocci, 2006,
p. 8) with consequences that are still unfolding. The most obvious and immediate consequence
was less political power and influence, which meant that Spain was neither able to tell history
nor, as stated by Iarocci (2006), to “represent and successfully project its culture internationally”
(p. xi). Also, the Spanish language, itself, had been replaced in almost every field (political,
scientific, etc.) by French, German, and English.
Consequently, this exclusion of Spain during the second phase of modernity led to the question-
ing of the production of knowledge in Spain by the European empires of the second generation:
England, France, and Germany. This perception is illustrated in the research by Altschul (2012)
who states that “Spain in the nineteenth century was . . . considered as unable to produce knowl-
edge” (p. 10). An example of this can be found in the French Encyclopedie, where de Morvilliers
(1782)2 doubts that Spain has made any contribution to collective knowledge at all. Two hun-
dred years later, these notions were still evident, as Hamel (2006) demonstrates: The use of the
Spanish language in industry, science, and technology at the turn of the century was very low,
and publications were scarce. Today, the situation has gone one step further. As Bocanegra-Valle
(2013) points out for the case of higher education in Spain, “a clear hegemony of English as the
language of research and academic publishing is encouraged by the driving forces (questions of
visibility, credibility, etc.)” (p. 18).
440 TABUENCA-CUEVAS

Thus, five hundred years later, Spain, no longer an empire, was still politically isolated until
changes in the mid-1970s allowed the European Economic Community to expand south. In
1986, Spain rejoined the EU after almost a decade of waiting. Spain, which historically has
been credited as setting events in motion for the first phase of modernity that led to Western
hegemony, almost five centuries earlier, did not reenter the European sphere until the postmodern
era (Mignolo, 2000). The admission into the EU included membership to the new neoliberal order
(Hermann, 2007) with consequences such as “significant costs in terms of economic adjustment,
loss of sovereignty, and cultural homogenization” (Royo, 2007, p. 20). Kubota (2011) and Wee
(2003) have pointed out the linguistic instrumentalism of English in their studies on neoliberalism
and language, and Piller and Cho (2013) stated that the “neoliberal economic restructuring has
managed to impose English on ever-more domains of global life while actually dissimulating
its operation” (p. 24). It is this “qualitative language spread which establishes a hierarchy of
discourse, functions and ideologies” (Hamel, 2006, p. 32) that will be further discussed in this
article.

THE HISTORY OF COOFFICIAL LANGUAGES IN SPAIN

As early as the 15th century, Nebrija (1496/1946) pointed out that “language has always been
the perfect instrument of empire” (p. 11), and this has not changed according to Nagy (2012), as
the Western world still associates national identities with specific languages. The current Spanish
constitution is an example of this state. Spanish is the national language in all the national territory,
despite the fact that other languages are spoken.3 Moreover, this continuous process during the
last four centuries contains many examples of the attempt to preserve linguistic hegemony of over
500 million Spanish-language speakers. The most evident was the creation of the Real Academia
Española in 1713 to safeguard the proper use of the Spanish language, which was evolving and
expanding in use. This use of academies was extended to all the Spanish-speaking countries and
resulted in the banding together of all 22 academies in the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua
Española in 1951. A more recent example is the creation in 1991 of the Instituto Cervantes
network across the globe to promote Spanish language and culture.
It is interesting to note that, as Trenz (2007) has shown, Spanish was more highly standardized
outside its borders than inside. Consequently, the languages spoken in the Iberian Peninsula have
been affected differently by laws and decrees during the last four centuries. Nevertheless, during
the last four decades, there have been changes in language policies in Spain that have led to
the official recognition of these other minority languages as coofficial languages. These changes
are in line with the suggestions made by Pennycook (2006), which not only provide additive
language education utilizing citizens’ native tongues but also recognize individuals’ linguistic
rights. A brief overview of the recent historical-political changes regarding language policy in
Spain (Nagy, 2012) will help to illustrate this shift.
Until 1975, when Spain was under a dictatorship, education was regulated at a national level,
and the official language of instruction was Spanish. Only, in 1982, Spain truly achieved a stable
democratic government, after the failed military coup in 1981. Today, according to Kottman (2001)
and Ross and Salvador Crespo (2003) the organization of the national territory in Spain can be
called a “recognized unitary state” (as cited in Bengoetxea, 2005, p. 49). Through subsequent
legislation, minority (and not so minority) languages have been recognized as coofficial languages.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 441

This process supports multilingualism and realizes a “meaningful democracy since the constituent
groups of the state are better positioned to participate as equals when their cultures and languages
are respected and afforded legitimacy through institutional recognition and support” (Ricento,
2006, p. 15; see also Andreotti Oliveira & de Souza, 2012). Thus, the current linguistic map
of Spain shows the use not only of Spanish/Castellano but also of Catalan, Valencian, Basque,
Galician, and Aranese languages in their respective areas. Nagy (2012) discusses the differences
in the historical development of language policy in Spain in the descriptions that follow.
The most widely spoken minority language is Catalan, which is currently spoken by ten million
people. The use of Catalan was commonplace during the era of the Catholic Spanish Monarchy
in the 15th century. When Castille and Aragon became one unified kingdom, the preference for
Castillian began to outweigh the use of Catalan and by the 18th century, the use of Catalan
was limited in many cases, restricted in others, until it was totally forbidden after the Spanish
civil war. It was not until 1979 that the Organic Law 4/1979 made Catalan an official language,
guaranteeing its use in public life. Valencian, spoken south of Catalonia, shares many of the same
grammatical and linguistic features, and some consider it to be a variation of Catalan. Its use was
also reinstated as a coofficial language in the 1980s in public administration, government, and at
all levels of education.
The millennia-old language of Basque (recorded in use in the 10th century) is completely
unrelated to any Romance language. There were a variety of spoken dialects, which were grouped
under the Basque language. After the civil war in 1939, the use of Basque was actively discouraged.
It was not until the 1960s that a standardized version of Basque was developed and by 1983 it
was officially reintegrated into the educational system. Today, there are approximately over one
million speakers of the language.
The last two languages are Galician and Aranese. The Galician language can be traced back to
the 14th century but was not standardized until the 20th century. It was also reintroduced into the
education system in 1983. Galician is losing ground, as the number of speakers decreases annually.
In the last case, Aranese (Occitan) has always been spoken by a small number of speakers but
has survived through the centuries and is used in the educational system today. These languages
have survived—in some cases during millennia—as they are real working languages, spoken by
the inhabitants of a given region and this heritage is part of the history and culture of Spain.
Changes began in the 1970s and continue to the present day. Since 1970, there have been seven
new education laws, but it wasn’t until 1983 that the law clearly permitted regional educational,
linguistic autonomy within a centralized framework. The other languages in Spain (Galician,
Catalan, Valencian, Aranese, and Basque), officially sanctioned in educational programs in their
respective territories, had slowly been reincorporated into all areas of public life. In many cases,
this led to the creation of immersion programs that combined Spanish with a coofficial language
or the teaching of coofficial languages as a second language. These politics produced what could
be termed a horizontal bilingualism, i.e., the use of two languages that are considered by speakers
as equally important.
Thus, much importance has been given to the recovery of these minority languages that are
part of Spanish culture. Ives (2004) has succinctly stated that “language is intimately connected
to collective culture and the entire framework through which one sees the world” (p. 27). Trabant
(2012) adds to this idea by explaining that “one of the main relevant issues is evidence that
intellectual creativity is greatest when conceptualized in the mother tongue in the central culture
language of the relevant country” (p. 107). Therefore, the move forward to disrupt hegemonic
442 TABUENCA-CUEVAS

linguistic control for recognition and acceptance of societal multilingualism has been relatively
successful in Spain to date.

THE LINGUISTIC MARKETPLACE IN THE EU AND SYMBOLIC CAPITAL

During the last twenty years, the focus on the need for language learning in the EU has undergone
several changes. In 1995, the European Council in the White Paper on Education and Training
has stated that “multilingualism is part and parcel of both European identity/citizenship and the
learning society” (p. 47). This tenet resulted in the proposal that everyone should learn two EU
languages in addition to their mother tongue, regardless of their choice of education and training.
In 2002, this recommendation was reiterated by the Council of Europe, with the addition that there
should also be the “establishment of a linguistic competence indicator in 2003” (p. 19). This came
on the heels of the publication of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR) in 2001 by the Council of Europe. It established six levels of language competence,
from A1 to C2. Several years later, another report on multilingualism by the Commission of
the European Communities was released in 2008: Multilingualism: An Asset for Europe and a
Shared Commitment. It contains a European strategy for multilingualism, which seemed to support
a multilingual language policy across Europe (2008/C 320/01). Beacco (2005) and Phillipson
and Skutnabb-Kangas (1996) comment that “efforts are underway in several [European] states to
ensure that not only English but other foreign languages are learned” (p. 445).
Nevertheless, the shift toward English is evident, and Phillipson (2003) takes a look at the
pressures of globalization and Europeanization, which may be strengthening English at the
expense of other European languages. One clear example is the choice of English as the working
language in many of the Commissions of the EU (van Els, 2006). Moreover, the idea that English
is the lingua franca has been justified as a need in international settings. According to Trudgill
(1983), this type of “linguistic subjugation (or unification, depending on one’s point of view) is . . .
an important strategy in implementing political subjugation (or unification)” (p. 152). Perhaps, it
could be seen a manner of connecting the myriad of voices across the EU. However, Ives (2004)
rejects this view saying that “accepting monolingualism, even in a lingua franca and de facto
manner, means reducing cultural ways of interpreting the world to one common denominator”
(p. 27).
The shift toward the use of English reflects what Bourdieu (1991) would call linguistic
competence as a symbolic capital. If a specific linguistic competence is in demand, it empowers
the speaker of the lingua franca over other speakers. In contrast, a speaker’s linguistic capital
can become obsolete and lose value in symbolic marketplaces. Calhoun (2002) reiterated this
idea when he points out that symbolic capital determines the extent of someone’s honor and
prestige. As early as 1995, the British Council touted the value of the English language as an
international medium as it “underpins human rights, good government, conflict resolution and
the democratic process by ensuring that communities have access to the information society,
to the world media and to freedom of opinion” (n.p.). If English as a language is viewed as
representing these characteristics, the symbolic value of speaking English would enable speakers
“to gain access to and exercise power” (Heller, 1995, p. 159). Some may contend that only native
language speakers would have the upper hand in the linguistic marketplace (Harper, 2011), but
other researchers like Erling and Bartlett (2006) debate this premise. According to their study, the
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 443

EU as a linguistic marketplace provides English language speakers with “new symbolic capital of
being new Europeans” (p. 33), which readily recognizes the value of nonnative English speakers.
What is not taken into consideration however, is that the business of teaching English (Hamel,
2006) “is based on a number of tenets that establish a hierarchy of programmes favouring native
speakers of English and their countries: English is best taught monolingually, with the same
textbooks worldwide, preferably by native speakers and as early as possible” (p. 22). Seidlhofer
(2003) also points out that research into second language acquisition and corpus linguistics
usually take the primacy of standard native speaker norms as self-evident. This control produces
a type of world standard English (Crystal, 1997), which is questioned by Brutt-Griffler (2002).
She does not see how English can be taught using these traditional frameworks.
This reality is reflected throughout Europe in general and can be seen in the statistics provided
by Eurostat (2013). Over 75% of all students in primary education learn English within the EU-
28. At upper secondary education level, those who study English increase to 93.7%, whereas the
number of students who study more than one foreign language has dropped more than 3% since
2008. Most remarkable is the fact that two of the top three countries where no second language is
learned at upper secondary education level are precisely the United Kingdom and Ireland—two of
the English-language-speaking countries in Europe. This shift across the EU-28 to learn English,
but no other second language, at both primary and secondary levels reveals that multilingual
policies are simply not working. In the case of Spain, these changes are now being done at the
expense of one of the languages spoken in the national territory. In the words of Haugen (1985),
the issue now is “of centralism and assimilation versus co-existence and pluralism” (p. 4).

LEARNING ENGLISH IN SPAIN

Although Spain only rejoined the political scene in the EU twenty years ago, it has striven to
become Europeanized as quickly as possible (Piedrafita, Steinberg, & Torreblanca, 2006). This
can be clearly seen in the area of education where, for example, Spain has actively participated
in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) assessments since the year 2000 and has consistently
scored lower than the OECD average every time (OECD, 2012). Spain has also been part of
the OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education as part of the higher education institutions (HEIs) in
Europe. The OECD Spain Report (2009) calls for the “pursuit of a better alignment between the
tertiary system and the nation’s economic and social development goals” and improvement of
“equity of access and outcomes among all socio-economic groups” (pp. 7–8). The rapid attempt
to align its educational system with the expectations of organizations like the OECD in the
field of education has apparently not always been in line with the unique situation of Spain. As
a marginalized country in Western hegemony, with a peculiar linguistic situation, the Spanish
context, in which these changes of language politics are being implemented, must be considered.
In the case of Spain, the consequences of this perceived need to learn English are already
clear. The latest change in education law in 2013 has seen a marked recentralization of language
policy and the curriculum. Spanish has been designated as the language of instruction with a
greater emphasis on learning a second international language. English has become the second
language of choice for almost 100% of primary schools and 98% of secondary schools (Eurostat,
2013). Many schools opt for Spanish/English bilingual programs or, conversely English and one
444 TABUENCA-CUEVAS

of the coofficial languages, such as English/Catalan. They produce a shift to vertical bilingualism
with students opting for a “higher ranking” language (Hamel, 2006, p. 27). It should be noted
that although students study a language, there is no additional certification of the second or third
language abilities beyond the students’ academic transcripts. In addition, and far more critical,
these new programs have been created at the expense of the one of the languages that was already
in place. In an even more particular case, the Ministry of Education has ratified a previously
existing agreement in 2013 with the British Council to increase bilingual education in dual
education programs. There are currently 84 primary centers and 43 secondary centers under this
program. Needless to say, these types of programs are not economically accessible to everyone.
In vocational education, English courses are now a mandatory part of the curriculum and
some vocational programs have adopted a bilingual model. Tertiary education has been affected
on several levels. At universities, students are expected to demonstrate language proficiency
in one language other than their mother tongue at a CEFR B1 or, in some cases, B2 level in
addition to attaining their degree qualifications to graduate. These language courses are usually
not part of the degree program, and this type of certification is often done through an exam at the
university language center and certified by the Asociación de Centros de Lenguas en la Enseñanza
Superior (ACLES) or through Cambridge Language Exams or Trinity Exams to name two. Other
changes, like degree courses in English or entire degree programs in English, are now becoming
more commonplace.
All of this is justified in the OECD (2011) report, which has pointed out that in the case of
Spain “another issue which business repeatedly complains about is the weakness of graduates’
general skills, such as written expression and foreign languages” (p. 21). English as a symbolic
capital empowers students; it “affects a person’s social position” (Urcioli, 2013, p. 107). But there
is, according to Harper (2011), “not only a strong incentive for individuals to learn English, but
there are also incentives for national governments to provide English-based language education
programs to their citizens” (p. 530). Muhlhäusler (1994) contends this premise: Language teaching
may but need not serve imperialist purposes. But does it lead to a more stable, equitable world
or more social justice? He concludes that “the expansion of a small number of languages at the
cost of a large number of others” (p. 122) is not acceptable.

OFFICIAL LANGUAGE EXAMS AND CERTIFICATION IN SPAIN

As early as 1911, the Escuela Official de Idiomas (EOI) in Spain was established to provide
students with language certification at a national level. Students had two options: follow a five-
year program and attain an advanced level certificate, or sit the exams at each level independently
and attain either a lower-level certificate or the advanced certificate. In 2006, a new education
law aligned the EOIs with the CEFR, and the courses were redesigned. Currently, it takes six
years to reach a B2 level in any language, and not all centers offer additional courses to attain
either a C1 or C2 level. This law implies a longer period of study at a much greater expense
for students. In the case of ACLES, students can follow courses at university language centers
(usually on campus), which prepares them for CEFR-level exams, or they can simply sit the
exams to obtain a certificate. These certificates are valid only between member universities of
the ACLES organization. Thus, currently, there are no national institutions in Spain that certify
language competence across EU borders. Learning English is a key to “do things, get things,
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 445

influence people and so on “ (Heller, 1995, p. 159). This has led to a rise in the number of test
takers of exams, which are internationally recognized such as the Cambridge language exams
among others.
Cambridge language exams are now formally recognized by over 14,000 universities, employ-
ers, government agencies, and other organizations around the world (Cambridge Assessment,
2013). This global recognition promotes test taking. In 2013, just one of the tests, the IELTS,
was taken by over two million people worldwide. In Spain, these exams are recognized by the
Ministry of Employment and the Ministry of Education, local administrations and private/public
companies. The inherently conveyed message is that “the entry points into privileged career
paths at the portal to university study in English-speaking countries—and within numerous job
pyramids inside the corporate and professional world—are controlled by quantitatively measured
performance on several international language proficiency tests” (Templer, 2004, p. 190). As
previously mentioned, in the case of Spain, some youths even believe it is more important to
know English than to have professional qualifications (Cambridge English Language Assessment,
2015a). It is interesting to note that a full list of institutions that recognize these certificates in
Spain is not available, which leads many students to believe that it is best to obtain them just in
case. However, this is not the only reason.
In Spain, there are particular circumstances that need to be considered when dealing with
official certification. The unemployment ratio for the last three years for youths between 15 and
24 years of age is over 20% (Eurostat, 2014). This, in turn, has led to a very competitive job
market. Therefore, another issue is the perceived correlation between English-language skills
and the possibilities of employment, as pointed out by Harper (2011). A decade ago, Docquier
and Marfouk (2005) identified the fact that 85% of the world’s skilled migrants are located in a
small group of developed countries (among them France, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, and the United States). In four of these countries, English is the official language. Della
Chiesa, Scott and Hinton (2012) approach this issue by indicating how “anybody recruited at or
above a ‘certain level’ is now expected to be able to express himself/herself at least in English” (p.
30) equating success in the world of work with English-language skills. Among other tendencies,
this has produced a phenomenon named titulitis by Alonso, Fernández, and Nysen (2008).
Students compete for future jobs by accumulating certificates, which verify competencies. When
it comes to these types of official language exams, in contrast to the multiple opportunities for
evaluation at all levels of the Spanish education system, students pay each time they take an
exam, and each failure is a costly process. The fees for these exams like Cambridge exams
(according the 2013 annual report) totals into the hundreds of millions of pounds. The result of
this illusionary accumulation is an additional economic burden of attaining certification, which
is seen to be necessary and better, and is not provided by the national education system. Ives
(2004) has pinpointed the role of English in the growing gap between the world’s wealthy and
poor: those who speak English or have the resources to learn it and the poor who don’t.

LANGUAGE EXAMS AND TEACHING

A final issue is how official language exams based on the CEFR have an effect in the classroom.
Little (2007) stated that the “impact on language testing far outweighs its impact on curriculum
design and pedagogy” (p. 64). However, Martyniuk (n.d.) believes that the CEFR does impact on
446 TABUENCA-CUEVAS

language learning in the planning and development of curricula. According to Seidlhofer (2003),
English language teaching and curricula have maintained “the goal of successful communication
with native speakers” and “approximating native-like command of the language” (p. 12). This
focus on attaining native-like language skills is even reflected in the descriptors of language
proficiency in the CEFR. Thus, the preference for native-like skills cannot be underestimated.
In multiple articles, Madrid (1999) and Trujillo and Madrid (2001) discuss the reality of
teacher training in the field of foreign language learning, especially of English learning. These
studies have shown the varying levels of deficit in the foreign language training of teachers
during the last two decades. This deficit has produced solutions, such as the need to present
official language-level certification, that are becoming the norm. More and more, these teachers
are expected to prepare students for official exams using standardized materials.
Additionally, it has been recognized that high-stake language exams exert another powerful
influence on teaching and learning, a phenomenon known as the washback effect (Alderson &
Wall, 1993). The concept of washback seems to be associated primarily with tests used for taking
important decisions that affect different sectors such as who receives admission into further
education or employment opportunities (Chapman & Snyder, 2000; Madaus, 1988). Watanabe
(2004) has researched factors that are part of the washback effect. The study points out the
importance of the test in terms of status and consequences as well as highlighting test factors
which include the purpose, content and the method of the test. Some researchers, like Petrie
(1987), advocate that these types of tests are positive. They are “the engine for implementing
educational policy” (p. 175). However, the danger in these cases is how the need for certification
affects classroom practices. As the need of attaining a certificate is becoming more important
in Spain, these effects have an impact on teaching and learning in schools (Weir, Vidakovic &
Galaczi, 2013). Teachers are expected to not only teach English and evaluate national curricula,
which has already been adjusted to the CEFR scales, but also to ensure that students will pass
additional certification of language competence. This has created a situation where the “normative
control” (Hamel, 2006, p. 35) of English is preserved by focusing on native-English skills through
the use of official exams and of similar language teaching materials worldwide. The use of any
framework can only be meaningful “when it is accepted as a shared point of reference (not a
standard), which can be used to compare contextual choices, including those made in using its
levels and scales” (Coste, 2007, p. 46).

DISCUSSION

The discussion in this article poses more questions than it answers. As van Els (2006) succinctly
points out, “In order to develop a policy on foreign language teaching, it is necessary to cat-
alogue the actual needs of the country and the citizens; making vague general statements on
the importance of teaching foreign languages is not enough” (p. 238). The reports reviewed in
this article regarding learning English highlight that it will guarantee employability and greater
income potential because of the symbolic value of the language. This is the basis for the impor-
tance of English language learning. Ironically, as Hamel (2006) points out, “Even bilinguals in
the common international languages (e.g., English-Spanish) will find it difficult to compete since
their number is rapidly increasing” (p. 25).
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 447

Hamel (2006) states that the term imperialism has been replaced by globalization where
“language and communication play a central role” (p. 6). However, the definition of linguistic
imperialism by Phillipson (1997), which is described as the “imposition of power relations
mediated by language dichotomies that create a hierarchization of languages” (p. 238), is now
evident in the current language policies in Spain. What needs to be done in a multilingual
country such as Spain, which has taken a step backward regarding multilingual policies at every
educational level, to reclaim recently lost ground? As English has acquired such a major symbolic
capital, it is important to evolve strategies to resist English linguistic hegemony. Otherwise, this
hegemony will lead to “inequities as well as loss of cultural knowledge and linguistic diversity”
(Dimova, Hultgren & Jensen, 2015, p. 8). This issue is beginning to come to the forefront.
Researchers like Segade Alonso (2015) points out that the high symbolic value of a foreign
language highly outweighs the value of learning for personal development.
For the last two decades, the labeling of English as a lingua franca and, in particular, “the
academic lingua franca” (van Leeuwen, 2003, p. 20) has produced changes in education that
cannot be ignored. A second aspect is the nonneutrality of English. As an international scientific
language, it is not a lingua franca or a nonlanguage. Rather, it is “the bearer, like all other natural
languages, of a particular vision of the world. As such it is not universal and purely objective,
which is what real lingua francas were” (Trabant, 2012, p. 108). This creates a scenario that
obliges researchers to write in a language that may not always express what the authors mean, in
exchange for greater visibility. The negative side to this is the threat to “scientific creativity and
conceptual diversity itself as the basis for scientific development” (Hamel, 2006, p. 24).
The consequences of the changes in the Spanish educational system and the rising need
for certification are still unfolding. Undeniably, the need for official language certification has
become the norm in Spain. This need is based on the perception that some countries are more
successful at language teaching than others (della Chiesa, 2012). National agencies are under
suspicion. Are they valid institutions to certify language competencies if they only qualify
language competence within a particular country? The need for agencies like ACLES to be given
more weight in certification needs to be addressed. If these certificates are becoming mandatory
in the labor market, shouldn’t national curricula provide certification of language competence
through national education curricula? Studies should be done on the real costs of additional
certification for students who may need to sit an exam multiple times to pass.
How does this affect the role of the teacher in the classroom? There is a clear normative
control in English language teaching through “a unified approach of classroom instruction,
teaching materials, centralized examinations and research” (Hamel, 2006, p. 23). It is yet to be
seen how this will affect teacher training programs and how this could transform the purpose of
the teacher in the language classroom. More research needs to be done on classroom practices at
all levels of education regarding the perceived need for official language certificates and how this
affects classroom practice. There needs to be a reevaluation of the real needs behind language
learning not only thinking of economic but rather personal gain.
The struggle in Spain to balance its linguistic heritage will be difficult in the years to come.
If there is a dramatic increase in the use of English that severely undermines the use of national
languages, there will be a need to protect minority languages in the future through further
legislation, as Sweden did with the Act on National Minorities (SFS 2009, p. 724). Another
route is proposed by Harper (2011), who believes that multilingualism should be considered a
global norm to preserve diverse and cultural-linguistic heritage. Researchers such as Francisco,
448 TABUENCA-CUEVAS

Fernando Trujillo, and Vez (2011) have pointed out the need to favor eco-linguistic diversity,
and their study supports the words of Menchu (2009): “Language is the channel through which
peoples’ cultures are transmitted, only by ensuring its use and development at all levels can
the tragedy of the disappearance of languages, which ultimately means the impoverishment of
humanity, be prevented ” (4).

NOTES

1. See, for example: http://www.thelocal.es/20150518/spains-newfound-love-of-english

2. The original text by de Morvilliers (1782) in the article Espagne questions what Spain
has contributed to Europe: “Aujourd’hui le Danemark, la Sude, la Russie, la Pologne
même, l’Allemagne, l’Italie, l’Angleterre et la France, tous ces peuples ennemis, amis,
rivaux, tous brûlent d’une généreuse émulation pour le progrès des sciences et des arts!
Chacun médite des conquêtes qu’il doit partager avec les autres nations; chacun d’eux,
jusqu’ici, a fait quelque découverte utile, qui a tourné au profit de l’humanité! Mais que
doit on à l’Espagne? Et depuis deux siècles, depuis quatre, depuis dix, qu’a-t-elle fait
pour l’Europe? ”
3. Article 3.1 of the 1978 Constitution reads: Castilian is the official Spanish language
of the State. Article 3.2 reads: “The other languages of Spain shall also be official in
the respective self-governing communities in accordance with their statutes.” Article 3.3
reads: “The wealth of the different language variations of Spain is a cultural heritage
which shall be the object of special respect and protection.”

REFERENCES

Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics 14(2), 115–129.
Alonso, L. E., Fernández Rodrı́guez C. J., & Nyssen, J. M. (2008). El debate sobre las competencias. Madrid, Spain:
Icono.
Altschul, N. R. (2012). Geographies of philological knowledge: Postcoloniality and the transatlantic national epic.
Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Andreotti Oliveira, V., & de Souza, L. M. T. M. (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Bacon, F. (1629/2005). An advertisement touching a holy war. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Beacco, J. C. (2005). Languages and language repertoires: Plurilingualism as a way of life in Europe. Strasbourg, France:
Council of Europe.
Bengoetxea, J. (2005). The participation of infra-state entities in European Union Affairs in Spain: The Basque Case. In
S. Weatherhill & U. Bernitz (Eds.), The role of regions and sub-national actors in Europe (pp. 47–66). Portland, OR:
Hart Publishing.
Black, J. (2008). Great powers and the quest for hegemony: The world order since 1500. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2013). The perceived value of English for academic publishing among ESP multilingual scholars
in Europe. ESP Today. Journal of English for Specific Purposes at Tertiary Level, 1(1), 5–25.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
British Council (1995). Press Pack for English 2000 project. Manchester, England: Author.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Press.
Calhoun, C. (2002). Symbolic Capital. In C. Calhoun (Ed.) Dictionary of the social sciences in politics and social sciences
(p. 165). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 449

Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2015a). Cambridge monitor. Retrieved from http://www.cambridge.es/
nosotros/cambridge-monitor/millennials-2015
Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2015b). Exam recognition infographic. Retrieved from http://www.
cambridgeenglish.org/images/exam-recognition-infographic.pdf
Cambridge Assessment. (2013). Cambridge Assessment Group Annual Report, 2012-2013. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Chapman, D., & Snynder, C. (2000). Can high stakes national testing improve instruction: Reexamining conventional
wisdom. International Journal of Educational Development, 20, 457–474.
Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Multilingualism: An asset for Europe and a shared commitment.
Retrieved from http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/language-technologies/docs/multilingual-comm.pdf
Coste, D. (2007). Contextualizing the uses of the common European framework of reference for languages. Strasbourg,
France: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe. (2002). Barcelona European Council: Presidency Conclusions. SN 100/1/02 REV 1.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
della Chiesa, B. (2012). Learning languages in a globalising world. In B. della Chiesa, J. Scott & C. Hinton (Eds.),
Languages in a global world: Learning for better cultural understanding (pp. 37–51). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
de Morvilliers, M. N. (1782). Espagne. In C. J. Panckoucke (Ed.). L’Encyclopédie méthodique (Vol 1, pp. 554–568).
Paris, France: Panckoucke.
Della Chiesa, B., Scott, J., & Hinton, C. (2012). Languages in a global world: Learning for better cultural understanding.
Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Dimova, A., Hultgren, K., & Jensen, C. (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education: English in
Europe (Vol. 3). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Docquier, F., & Marfouk, A. (2005). International migration by educational attainment 11990-2000. Washington, DC:
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3382, Release 1.1.
Dussel, E. (1995). Europa, modernidad y eurocentrismo. Revista Ciclos en la Historia, la Economı́a y la Sociedad, 20(3),
41–53.
Education First. (2015). Índice de nivel de inglés 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ef.com.es/epi/
Erling, E.J., & Bartlett, T. (2006). Making English their own: The use of ELF among students of English at the FUB.
Nordic Journal of English Studies, Special Issue on English as Lingua Franca, 5(2), 9–40.
European Council. (1995). White paper on education and training. Retrieved from
http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white papers/pdf/com95 590 en.pdf
Eurostat (2013). Foreign language learning statistics. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Foreign language learning statistics
Eurostat (2014). Spain: Youth unemployment 2012-2014. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/File:Table 1 Youth unemployment, 2014Q4 (%25).png
Francisco, L., Fernando Trujillo, F., & Vez, J. M. (2011). Educación bilingüe. Integración de contenidos y segundas
lenguas. Madrid: Sı́ntesis.
Hamel, R. E. (2006). The development of language empires. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J. Mattheier & P. Trudgill
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics–Soziolinguistik. An international handbook of the science of language and society (Vol III,
2nd ed., pp. 2240–2258). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Harper, S. M. (2011). Counting the costs of a global Anglophonic hegemony. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies,
18(1), 515–538.
Haugen, E. (1985). The language of imperialism: Unity or pluralism? In N. Wolfson & J. Manes (Eds.), Language of
inequality (pp. 4–17). Amsterdam: Mouton.
Heller, M. (1995). Language choice, social institutions, and symbolic domination. Language in Society 24, 373–405.
Hermann, C. (2007). Neoliberalism in the European Union. Studies in Political Economy, 79, 61–89.
Iarocci, M. P. (2006). Properties of modernity: Romantic Spain, modern Europe, and the legacies. Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Instituto Cervantes. (2012). El español: una lengua viva. Retrieved from http://eldiae.es/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/2012 el espanol en el mundo.pdf
Ives, P. (2004). Language, representation and supra-state democracy: Questions facing the European Union. In D. Laycock
(Ed.), Representation and Democratic Theory (pp. 56–91). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Kottmann, J. (2001). Europe and the regions. European Law Review, 26(2), 159–176.
450 TABUENCA-CUEVAS

Kubota, R. (2011). Questioning linguistic instrumentalism: English, neoliberalism, and language tests in Japan. Linguistica
and Education, 22(3), 248–260.
Linz, J. J. (1973). Early state-building and late peripheral nationalism against the state: the case of Spain. In S. N.
Eisenstadt & S. Rokkan (Eds.), Building states and nations (Vol II, pp. 32–116). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Little, D. (2007). The common European framework of reference for languages: Perspectives on the making of suprana-
tional language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645–655.
Lobell, S. E. (2005). The challenge of hegemony. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Madaus, G. F. (1988). The influence of testing on the curriculum. In L. N. Tanner (Ed.), Critical Issues in Curriculum
(pp. 83–121). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Madrid, D. (2001). Problemática de la enseñanza de las lenguas extrajeras en España. In R. Gómez-Caminero (Ed.), La
enseñanza de lenguas en el nuevo milenio (pp. 11–46). Granada, Spain: Grupo Editorial Universitario.
Martyniuk, W. (n.d.). The use and (potential) misuse of frameworks–The CEFR case. Retrieved from http://www.uni-
leipzig.de/actflcefr/material/Use%20CEFR%20Martyniuk.pdf
Mejias-López, A. (2009). The inverted conquest: The myth of modernity and the transatlantic onset of modernism.
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Menchu, R. (2009). Language and education: The missing link. Reading, UK: CfBT Education Trust.
Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories/Global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges and border thinking. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mulhäusler, P. (1994). Language teaching = linguistic imperialism? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17,
121–130.
Nagy, N. (2012). Linguistic diversity and language rights in Spain. Studia Iuridica Auctoritate Universitatis Pécs
Publicata, 150, 183–202.
Nebrija, A. (1496/1946). Gramatica Castellana. Madrid: Junta del Centenario.
OECD. (2009). OECD Reviews of tertiary education: Spain. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/spain/
42309226.pdf
OECD. (2011). Report: OECD perspectives: Spain policies for a sustainable recovery. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2012). SPAIN–Country note–Results from PISA 2012. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/
pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-spain.pdf
Pennycook, A. (2006). Postmodernism in language policy. In T. Ricento, An introduction to language policy: Theories
and method (pp. 60–76). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Petrie, H. G. (1987). Introduction to evaluation and testing. Educational Policy, 1, 175–180.
Phillipson, R. (1997). Realities and myths of linguistic imperialism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop-
ment, 18(3), 238–247.
Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996). English only worldwide, or language ecology. TESOL Quarterly 30(3),
429–452.
Piedrafita, S., Steinberg, F., & Torreblanca, J. I. (2006). 20 años de España en la Unión Europea (1986-2006). Retrieved
from http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/publicaciones/libros/publicacion 20 europe.pdf
Piller, I. & Cho, J. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society, 42(1), 23–44.
Ricento, T. (2006). An introduction to language policy: Theories and method. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Rokkan, S. (1971). Nation-building: A review of models and approaches. In S. Rokkan, K. Saelen, & J. Warmbrunn
(Eds.), Nation-building (pp. 7–38). The Hague: Mouton.
Ross, A., & Salvador Crespo, M. (2003). The effect of devolution on implementation of EC law in Spain and the UK.
European Law Review, 28(2), 210–230.
Royo, S. (2007). Lessons from Spain and Portugal in the European Union after 20 years. Pôle Sud 1(26), 19–45.
Segade Alonso, C. E. (2015). Lenguas de comunicación o de negocios. La aportación contemporánea del bilingüismo
crı́tico a la enseñanza de lenguas. Porta Linguarum, 24, 151–162.
Seidlhofer, B. (2003). A concept of international English and related issues: from ‘real English’ to ‘realistic English’?
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
SFS 2009:724 (Act on National Minorities and National Minority Languages). Retrieved
http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/20090724.htm
Stradling, R. A. (1994). Spain’s struggle for Europe 1598-1668. London: Hambledon Press.
Templer, B. (2004). High-stakes testing at high fees: Notes and queries on the international English proficiency assessment
market. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 2 (1), 189–226.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 451

Trabant, J. (2012). Über die Lingua Franca der Wissenschaft. In H. Oberreuter, W. Krull, H. Joachim Meyer and K.
Ehlich (Eds.) Deutsch in der Wissenschaft. Ein politischer und wissenschaftlicher Diskurs. (pp. 101–107). München,
Germany: Olzog Verlag.
Trenz, H. J. (2007). Reconciling diversity and unity: Language minorities and European integration. Ethnicities, 7(2),
157–185.
Trujillo, F., & Madrid, D. (2001). Reflexiones en torno a la formación inicial del profesorado especialista en lenguas
extranjeras. In J. Perales (Ed.), Congreso Nacional de Didácticas Especı́ficas: Las Didácticas de las Áreas Curriculares
en el Siglo XXI (pp. 1771–1778). Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Trudgill, P. (1983). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. London: Penguin Books.
Urcioli, B. (2013). Exposing Prejudice. Lonngrove: Waveland Press.
Van Els, T. J. M. (2006). The European Union, its institutions and its languages: some language political observations.
In R. B. Baldauf, & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Language Planning and Policy (Vol II, pp. 202–251). Toronto, Canada:
Multilingual Matters.
Van Leeuwen, C. (2003). Feasibility of policy in university language teaching today. In C. van Leeuwen & R. Wilkinson
(Eds.), Multilingual approaches in university education (pp. 19–45). Maastricht: Universiteit Maastricht.
Watanabe, Y. (2004). Methodology in washback studies. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in
language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 19–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wee, L. (2003). Linguistic Instrumentalism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24,
211–224.
Weir, C. J., Vidakovic, I., & Galaczi, E. D. (2013). Measured constructs. A history of Cambridge English language
examinations 1913-2012. Studies in Language Testing 37. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.