Blog Post #9: Politics and Language Education Policies

Chapters 2 and 3 by McKay and Bokhorst-Heng identify and discuss many of the issues that occur in English language education in many parts of the world. The authors specifically address concerns as they relate to Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle countries. Inner Circle countries often see linguistic diversity as problematic, so they typically promote English without emphasis on learning or maintaining other languages. Outer Circle countries promote English proficiency for educational purposes; however, these countries often lack consistency in providing equal English learning opportunities. Additionally, Outer Circle countries, such as India and South Africa, may find themselves limited by diglossia, which affords English a higher status than other languages spoken in the country. Expanding Circle countries, on the other hand, struggle with motivating learners and teachers who lack confidence in their English proficiency.

As I read these chapters, I was struck by the differences in how English education can be approached. I also found it sobering to realize how heavily politics and government initiative influence the actual teaching and learning that take place in schools. For example, extreme differences exist in how England and the United States handle English education. England promotes mainstreaming of EL students and does not support bilingual education. Language policy makers believe that they can encourage a pluralistic society by avoiding the segregation of minority students. Although I can understand this desire for student integration, I also believe that some problems could arise from the desire for linguistic assimilation. Students, particularly new arrivals, could feel forced to give up their native language. Because language is associated so closely with one’s identity, students may feel identity conflict and end up resisting use of either English or their native languages. Additionally, educators could view students as lacking linguistic competence, rather than recognize them as already highly proficient in one language and in need of help transferring their skills to another language. The United States, on the other hand, approaches English education differently. American policy makers worry less about segregation and focus more on an EL student’s language develop prior to entering a mainstream classroom. Although I can agree that students need at least some basic understanding of English to feel confident in a mainstreamed classroom, I can also see some problems with removing students from their peers. Pull-out ESL classes could further stigmatize or encourage otherizing of EL students. So, in conclusion, I cannot agree fully with either country’s approach to English education. I think that, ideally, English education would cater to students’ individual needs. For some students, that may could a pull-out class. For others, that could mean full mainstreaming. However, in reality, problems exist no matter what type of educational system is in place. As a language teacher, my job is to be as sensitive to students as possible in spite of inequalities or disadvantages presented by the educational system. I believe that I can respect students’ linguistic and cultural background, as well as support student English language learning. Because I am not familiar with every language and culture, I cannot actively help every student maintain his/her native language and culture; however, I can learn from my students and encourage them to develop an identity that integrates multiple languages and cultural influences.