Pr Fewzia BEDJAOUI

British Civilisation

Abstract

This article shows the necessity of an open ended linguistic policy in multi –linguistic
societies. The experience of England shows us the heightened awareness of the languages
question. In this respect, we will devote a particular attention to the language policy from the
1960’s to the 1990’s. The principle that all pupils were to be given opportunities to develop
competence in correct English which was a vital skill in public, cultural and working life had
been challenged for decades because of the impact of heavy concentrations of immigrant
children in state schools. Before the late 1970’s most of immigrant pupils showed signs of
under-achievement, lack of performance , difficulties of understanding English and failure to
develop English skills to cope with the curriculum. The ensuing solution was an eventual
change in the language policy of the 1960’s aiming at matching the linguistic, academic and
social needs of immigrant pupils.

By that time, educationalists were undertaking research to investigate on how to provide

adequate education to immigrant pupils. Given that literacy emancipates, enculturates,
educates, there seems to be a strong debate for literacy. They concluded that the provision of
immigrant language teaching was to facilitate the mono-lingual English medium instruction.
There was a tendency to assume that a sound foundation for the acquisition of English skills
and academic success was to be reached through greater exposure to the mother tongue and a
strong emphasis on developing immigrant’s native language skills. They argue that biliteracy
gives access to different social and cultural worlds and is a strong source of cognitive and
curriculum advantage for bilinguals. Besides, there had been national and supra-national
pressures to include immigrant cultures and languages within the state school curriculum.
Ethnic parents and organizations, the National Union of Teachers, the Bullock Report (1975),
outstanding research on assimilation vs. intercultural education, and the EEC (Directive 77)
counteracted the assumptions of assimilation, i.e. that cultural communities should give up
their distinct cultural identity and take on the English way of life.

From the late 1970’s immigrant languages were viewed as an educational resource and not as
an impediment to the learning of English. At the primary level, they were used primarily as a
medium of instruction to ensure continuity of cognitive development to immigrant children.
The criteria for languages selection included the sociolinguistic situation of the immigrants:
concentration of those children and the choice for standard language associated with formal
schooling in the country of origin and religious practices. At secondary level, they acquired
foreign language status in the school curriculum alongside French and German in conformity
with the 1988 Education Act. Within this context of curriculum changes, the major challenge
of teachers was to cultivate a multi-cultural pedagogy: to learn about immigrant cultures, so as
to interact most constructively with all the pupils , to increase sensitivity and awareness of
diverse cultural communities, and to face acute questions related to training , material and
financial resources.

Key Words: immigrant children, language, multicultural education

Language Education for Intercommunication and Integration

Probably the first post-World War II immigrants were former members of the
Crown, 80% of whom were distributed as follows:10% from Africa, 32% from
British Caribbean , 37% from India and Pakistan and 21% from Eire , Australia
and New Zealand( Watson 1971: 246). Most of the Indians originated from the
Punjab and Gujurat areas while the Pakistanis came from West and East
Pakistan(Patterson 1969:8),constituted mostly of unskilled workers .But, such a
flow of unskilled workers from the Indian subcontinent and from the Caribbean
was to stop by the 1960s because of economic , social and cultural reasons (1958
riots of Notting Hill and Nottingham) for the labour shortage of those days was
things of the past.
From the 1960s to the late 1980s the double objective of the successive British
governments included the strengthening of immigration controls to reduce the number of
immigrants and the promotion of the integration of immigrant settlers through the protection
of fundamental human rights. As far as the educational institutions are concerned, such a
commitment compelled the British government to move from an ethnocentric and
assimilationist to an open-ended policy. The first policy was based on immigrant’s adaptation
to the existing educational system as well as they could.
 The official language policy of the 1960s was to impose learning standard English as a
compulsory subject to all the pupils including natives and immigrants at all stages. Yet,
immigrant children were unable to understand it and failed to develop English skills to cope
with the curriculum. The possible explanations for their under-achievement or lack of
performance were various. The under-achievement of immigrant pupils might be attributed to
socio-economic factors, notably the living and over-crowded dwellings where they lacked
toilet and shower facilities, adequate comfort and basic medical care. Closely related to socio-
economic status or material deprivation were psychological and social features such as
pessimism, discrimination and racial prejudice that contributed to another reason for
immigrant pupils ‘under-achievement. Besides, immigrant children were often labelled as
bilingual pupils possessing real academic difficulties since both mother tongue and English
were poorly developed. Thus, the specific explanation for their under-achievement was an
insufficient exposure to the English language (Craft 1983:11).

Following the principle that all pupils were to be given opportunities to develop
competence in correct English which was a vital skill in public, cultural and working life
(Van Lier 1995:105), intensive separate English classes (Tollefson1995:75) were introduced
in conformity with a government pamphlet “English for immigrants”(1985) as an aid to
integration. Despite the increase in the number of hours in English difficulties remained. The
language policy of the 1960s and early 1970s provoked English parental alarm and anger on
the basis that immigrant pupils were disrupting the normal classes. Subsequently ,the
problems regarding the concentration of immigrant pupils particularly in inner-city schools
had compelled local housing authorities to alleviate the increasing social welfare burden
placed upon these areas , namely to avoid the high ratio of immigrant pupils in schools
( Cashmore1994:86). As to immigrant parents, they had been dissatisfied with government
policy of languages and emphasised the need for urgent action to be taken to increase their
children’s academic performance (Trudgill 1984 :427).

As the second one, it challenged the previous response of educationists and politicians
because of the extent of the demographic changes and cross-cultural differences and
particularly the ensuing conflicts over such educational issues as school desegregation, the
deplorable state of schooling for immigrant pupils. This policy which had been influenced by
developments within European and English contexts, notably The European Economic
Community, immigrant parents and organizations called for the teaching of immigrants’
native languages and cultures and stressed the value of different immigrants’ cultures.
 The introduction of immigrants’ native languages was due particularly to a change in
government policy aiming at matching the linguistic, academic and social needs of immigrant
pupils. Major initiatives for the introduction of some minority languages had emerged both at
national and European levels. At the national level the official report, the Bullock Report,
called “A language for life”( 1975) represented a milestone in an official view-point on
immigrants’ languages. The report of the National Committee of Enquiry chaired by Lord
Bullock which looked into the teaching of English in schools made also some
recommendations regarding the education of immigrants ‘children notably to “maintain and
deepen their knowledge of their mother tongue(Trudgill op.cit.434), though there were no
guidelines for action. These two recommendations illustrated an anti-racist educational policy
aiming at abolishing inequality based on cultural diversity.

Meanwhile, in the mid-1970s two organizations, namely the National Association for
Multicultural Education and the National Association of Teachers of English concerned with
the education of children from ethnic minorities focused on the need for bilingualism and
foreign language teaching in Great Britain (Ibid.429).

In the same period some support for bilingual teaching came from the National
Association of Asian Youth and particularly Yuvak Sangh, a Gujerati association which held
immigrants’ language teaching on a voluntary basis. Following the joint-conferences for
teachers of south Asian languages which focused on the need to separate language teaching
from religious instruction and to provide immigrant teaching within the mainstream school
system, a Committee for Mother Tongue (Ibid.435) Then, outstanding research had been
undertaken, particularly by Figueroa (1984), Tansley and Craft (1984) and Tomlinson (1986)
to investigate on how to provide adequate education to immigrant pupils, despite the
prevailing differences among them. They suggested the provision of immigrant language
teaching to facilitate the mono-lingual English medium instruction. There was a tendency to
assume that a sound foundation for the acquisition of English skills and academic success was
to be reached through greater exposure to the immigrants’ native language and a strong
emphasis on developing immigrants’ native language skills(Baker 1993 :205).

Besides, at a European level a draft Directive on the “Education of Migrant Workers’

children” (1977) requested that all member states should teach within the school curriculum
the immigrants’ culture and language “in accordance with national circumstances and legal
systems”. The Directive was contrary to the fundamental English educational principle in that
the Department for Education and Science could not impose any mandatory policy on LEAs.
Under EEC pressure, that Department transmitted the Directive to LEAs and teachers’
associations in 1981, but no immigrant organizations or parents were consulted. The
subsequential Circular 5/81 gave guidelines for investigating ways in which immigrants’
native languages might be taught (EEC Directive 77/486).

To this end local education authorities responded differently to this need because of a
number of criteria including the socio-linguistic perspective, greater emphasis on diversity
and the intrinsic validity of different cultures. The socio-linguistic dimension had a direct
bearing on the choice of immigrant language to be taught within state-schools. Following the
Department of Education and Science, immigrant children constituted 100% of the school
population in some 12 state schools, 90% in 50 others and 75% in 230 schools ( The
Independent 1990). There was good evidence that such schools should develop their own
appropriate educational policies which would be responsive to the needs of immigrant pupils.

Beside the concentration of immigrant pupils in particular schools the choice of

immigrants’ languages in England was dependent upon the growing demand among minority
parents about the teaching of their own languages, to their children within state schools. The
socio-linguistic perspectives on immigrants’ language teaching determined the choice for
standard language associated with formal schooling in the country of origin and with religious
practices (Trudgill op.cit.:436). Though Urdu and Hindi are the language standard,
respectively for Pakistan and India, the role of religion in script-choice is considerable.
Consequently, Gujerati Moslems were taught Persian-Arabic script and Koranic Arabic. As to
Hindi Gujeratis and Panjabis, they learned Hindi and used Devanagari script to read the
Vedas, while the Sikh Panjabis turned to Gurmuki script associated with the teaching of
religions text, the Grant Sahib (Ibid 439).

The selection of immigrants’ languages had been steadily growing with the increasing
demand at the primary and secondary school levels. From the late 1970s immigrants’
languages were viewed as an educational resource and not as an impediment to the learning of
English. At the primary level they were used primarily as a medium of instruction to ensure
continuity and cognitive development to the immigrant children.

Immigrants’ native language teaching was supported mainly by bilingual teachers

where the bilingual teacher worked bilingually like in story telling sessions or where both
bilingual and monolingual teachers worked in close partnership when the pupils were engaged
in group activities (Tollefson, op.cit.83). But there was little continuity of such linguistic
support beyond the first years of schooling. At secondary level, immigrants’ native languages
acquired foreign language status in the school curriculum alongside French and German in
conformity with the enactment of the 1988 Education Act resulting from the calls for parity
with other subjects from the Coordinating Committee for Mother Tongue Teaching (1979)
and the National Union of teachers (1982) ( Trudgill op.cit. 435).

Yet, the necessity to develop a teaching force which should be better informed about
and sensitive to the application of working in a multicultural society, the lack of adequate
materials was among other complex issues which could be only resolved through time and
experience with different teaching approaches. Teacher training institutions published policy
statements on multi-cultural education. The Universities Council for Education of Teachers
published guidelines to demonstrate some awareness of the multicultural issue including
teaching the would-be teacher to teach pupils in a non-ethnocentric way, avoiding
intercultural prejudice and discrimination through the use of appropriate text-books and other
materials ( Thomas op.cit.:154). A series of research projects as the LEA Language Surveys
of 1979,1981,1983, The Linguistic Minorities Projects(1983) , in Bradford, Coventry ,
Haringey and London ( Tansley 1983: 367), sponsored by the European Economic
Community, produced teaching materials concerning the language, history, geography, music,
games and social studies of immigrants. Lastly, the Schools Council, the Schools Library
Services, The World Council Churches and the LEA multi-cultural resources centres (Arora
1986 : 149§152) had been producing potential curriculum matters to guide teachers to develop
their knowledge and attitude and to keep them informed about new publications.

This policy led to outstanding curricula developments, particularly in 1977 when due
recognition was given to immigrants’ native languages as foundation subjects within the
National Curriculum and religious education following an agreed syllabus which took into
account the faith of the pupil communities. However, the major challenge to teachers was to
cultivate a multi-cultural pedagogy, i.e. to learn about immigrants’ cultures so as to interact
most constructively with immigrant children and to relate the content of subject matters to
immigrants’ cultural backgrounds with a view to promoting social and cultural integration.

Such an educational policy posed particularly acute questions of availability of

schools, adequacy of staff, teaching equipment , adjustment of teacher training and financial
resources. The experience of England in terms of immigrants’ education shows us the
increased importance of the question of languages. Such an open-ended educational policy
reveals an overall improvement in language and culture teaching.

This policy seems to have depended on the achievement of the teachers and the extent
to which they could cope with the variety of the cultures they were teaching so that their
achievement could be of acceptable benefit for their learners. It is probably in this way that
cultures and communities are not to ossify and stagnate.

Bibliography

Baker, Colin 1993 Foundations of Bilingual education and Bilingualism; Clevendon:

Multilingual Matters Ltd

Braid, Mary and Mac Leod, Donald 1990 Parental Choice May Cause Apartheid in
Education in The Independent, 24 April

Cashmore, Elly 1994 Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations; London: Routledge

Council Directive 77/486/EEC of 25 July 1977 on the education of the children of

migrant workers
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!
CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31977L0486&model=guichett
Craft, Maurice 1983 The Participation of Ethnic Minority Pupils in Further and Higher
Education in Educational Research ,Vol 25 No 1, p10-19

Patterson, Sheila 1969 Immigration and Race Relations in Britain 1960-1967 London: Oxford
University Press

Ranjit, Arora and Duncan, Carlton 1986 Multicultural Education towards Good Practice
London: Routledge

Solomos, John 1991 Black Youth ,Racism and the State London: Cambridge University
Press

Tansley, Paula and Craft, Alma 1984 Mother Tongue and Support: a Schools Council Enquiry
in Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Vol 5 No 5, p367-384
Thomas,J.B. 1990 British Universities and Teacher Education –a Century of Change London:
the Palmer Press

Tollefson, J.W. 1995 Power and Inequality in Language Education Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press

Trudgill, Peter 1984 Language in the British Isles London: Cambridge University Press

Van Liers, Leo 1995 Language Awareness London: Penguin English Applied Linguistics

Watson, J.B. 1971 Empire to Commonwealth (1979-1970) London: Dent