The discourse of ESL policy: the impact of the ‘literacy crisis’

Mairead HannanMaster of TESOL

Why this research?

Practicing ESL teacher since 1990 Wanted to understand what what happening

to ESL profession in schools Why basic literacy is the focus to exclusion of

other needs Why many schools don’t provide ESL support Why teachers and communities seem to have

lost voice

Determined the reasons for changes as relating to: Policy Discourse The ‘literacy crisis’ (Lo Bianco and Freebody 2001)

Currently focus on economic discourse and away from the rights of multilingual Australian communities

What has happened to ESL

Subsumed by literacy needs (Lo Bianco 1998)

Collapsed into literacy funds (Lo Bianco, Hammond, Michell 1998, 2009)

Silenced (Ives, 2008)

Why and how has this occurred? Examined federal language and literacy

from 1986: National Policy on Languages (1987) Australian Language and Literacy

Policy (1991) Literacy For All (1998)

Victorian documents

ESL Companion to CSF (2000) ESL Companion VELS (2005) The ESL Handbook (2006) ESL Continuum (2008) PoLT (2004) Blueprints (2003; 2008) Literacy Teaching and Learning in Victorian

Schools (2006) VCAA (2008)

Research Methods

Critical Discourse Analysis (Blommaert 2005, Fairclough 1992,1995, 2001)

Grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss1967)

Political Sociology (Faulks 1999)

Neo-liberalism and education (Apple 2004)

Research premise

That policy and planning for languages and ESL exhibit three orientations (Richard Ruiz 1984):

1. Languages as a problem2. Languages as a right3. Languages as a resourceResource model is most desirable andproductive for a multilingual nation (Clyne 2005). 15-30% of Victorian students are bilingual.

Research process

Highlighted key words in policy texts Matrix of comparative, contrastive and

incommensurate data Related discourse to wider socio-political

contexts Theorized about discourses and related to

existing literature and theory Essentialized ideas relating them clearly to

the data

Themes arising from the data

Policy style and discourse• i) A collaborative style and inclusive multicultural discourse

• ii) A directive style and discourse of economic reform• iii) An imposing style and discourse of crisis• iv) A neo-liberal discourse focussed on competition and the

individual

Five restrictions• i) Restriction of languages• ii) Restriction of literacy• iii) Restriction of assessment• iv) Restriction of voice• v) Restriction of participation

Findings

A Neo-liberal state school ‘system’ in Victoria means that:

Varying practices and difficult to ascertain common practices relating to provision, programs and teaching

ESL is fore-grounded, back-grounded and absent in Victorian documents, depending on their sources

Manifestations of neo-liberalismThe government simultaneously: Devolves responsibility Applies accountability and compliance

measuresMarketisation of education and prioritisation of

choice and the individual. (Apple 2004).Results in a lack of voice for minority groups

and reflects a simplistic understanding of power. (Faulks 1999)

Currently Literacy and language are conflated. Benchmarks and state-regulated tests are

designed for native English speakers and disadvantage ESL students.

‘Literacy crisis’ makes individuals responsible for own learning.

Accountability measures abound but Dept does not ensure that ESL funds are

directed towards ESL programs.

(It seems ESL Survey no longer has a compliance measure but

NAP and Multicultural Education have)

Orientation towards language planning in Victoria ESL documents can show

multilingualism as a resource but also exhibit other orientations as affected by mainstream concerns

General documents show multilingualism as a problem: either backgrounds or omits planning for a multilingual population

General documents

PoLT: no ESL Literacy Teaching and Learning Paper

no. 9: no ESL VCAA: ESL backgrounded DEECD: ESL backgrounded or absent

Diffused practices in Victoria

Self managed schools ‘system’ mean there is great variety of practices and difficult to ascertain.

Schools respond to markets and clients: Whose voices? Dominant discourses?

ESL and literacy

ESL is not properly seen as a part of literacy Benchmarks and tests not ESL-friendly Literacy documents and national policy omit

ESL (and languages) ESL documents are backgrounded and

practices subservient to literacy needs which are ‘in crisis’

This is re-confirmed in documents, media, schools provision, curriculum - throughout.

2009 Developments

National Curriculum describes EAL/D students well in “considerations”

NAPLAN assessment continues to be designed for mother tongue English speakers and applied across the nation

2008 policy broadbanded all ESL funding, including NAP – how many states will have ESL units in 2010?