In research on mainstream school settings, a contrasting picture emerges in regard to the space allowed for identity construction. Several studies report that the way an individual constructs her identity may be implicitly restricted at school (DaSilva Iddings
& Katz 2007; Cooke 2008; also see Chen 2010). The new pupil may perceive herself in a certain light whilst the school places the same student in a different category (see
Hawkins 2005). This reflects Michaud’s (2000) notion of identity: ‘I am a prisoner of the image others have of me’ (p.397).8
Even within an urban, multilingual context, pupils may perceive a ‘difference between their experience and the linguistic and ethnic categories imposed on them’ (Leung, Harris & Rampton 1997, p.551). Newcomers to a school or individuals from minority communities may find themselves constantly being defined in terms of their country of birth or ethnic community; consequently, they may feel they have ‘to represent [their community] in the most accurate manner’ (Altman et al. 2010, p.168). While teachers may wish to encourage students to discuss their differing cultural traditions and customs, this unfortunately often only serves to reinforce the notion of otherness such children may feel (McEwan 1995; Morgan 2007), bestowing upon them an unwelcome visibility (see section 3.3.2).
Linguistic identities may also be severely constrained at school. Karrebæk (2013) maintains that despite the increasingly diverse nature of European societies, a monolingual ideology persists in mainstream schools in Europe (also see García & Li Wei 2014). In the UK, the language used as a medium of instruction (MOI) within state schooling remains primarily English. Commenting on documents from the 1980s, Leung, Harris and Rampton (1997) note that while ‘ethnic and linguistic diversity’ is recognised, English is still promulgated ‘as the universal medium defining the nation-state and as a principal instrument achieving social cohesion’ (p.553). More recent National Curriculum guidelines also stress the importance of this: ‘English has a pre-eminent place in education and society’ (Department of Education 2014). The continued prevalence of this approach is also noted by Temple (2010, p.287).
8 ‘Je suis prisonnier de l’image que les autres ont de moi’ (Michaud 2000, p.397).
Attitudes to language use and teaching within the UK are still influenced by the 1985 Swann Report (Swann 1985), which, despite its apparent support for the maintenance of minority languages, maintains that ‘essential to […] participation on equal terms as a full member of society, is a good command of English’ (p.426). Conteh and Brock (2011) note that the ‘model of ‘transitional’ rather than ‘additive’ bilingualism has
become normalised in educational policy and practice in England’ (p.348), which stems from the support framework introduced in the Report. That is, students are encouraged to move from their first language(s) to the dominant one.
Yet this approach is not confined to a UK setting. Writing in a Canadian context, Cummins (2005) highlights the prevailing tendency to see ‘students’ knowledge of additional languages […] as either irrelevant or as an impediment’ (p.585). A similarly
‘monolingual/monocultural ideology’ is seen to underpin the US educational system (Benesch 2008), whereby instead of utilising the linguistic repertoires of students,
‘institutions pathologize their differences’ (p.296). Studies also highlight the ‘‘deficit’
approach’ (Mehmedbegović 2008, p.6) prevalent in English language educational settings. In a study focusing on the experiences of a young Mexican girl in the US, Wortham and Rhodes (2013) criticise ‘the familiar American emphasis on
monolingualism and deficit models of those who do not speak English’ (p.545); a point also made by Gunderson (2000) in his work on migrant high school students in
America. Such a model also appears to be a feature of the education system in the UK.
Mehmedbegović (2012) describes the thinking whereby ‘not being able to speak English yet, is a deficiency’ (p.68).
At the same time, school has also been seen as a site where linguistic repertoires can be exploited. Rampton (2005), exploring teenagers’ language use, sees the school playground as a space for ‘language crossing’, whereby individuals intertwine snatches
of their different linguistic repertoires to create their own ways of communication and to fashion a discrete identity.
Heritage languages may also be used by minority speakers within school as a way to delineate and reassert their ethnic group membership. In Hall’s (2002) study of
language use amongst Sikh adolescents in Leeds, participants reported using Punjabi as ‘a useful weapon for fighting back’ against their classmates (p.113). Zielińska, Kowzan and Ragnarsdóttir (2014) note the use of Polish amongst school students in Iceland and England, where ‘Polish turns into a ‘secret language’ which can be used […] to help one another during classes’ (p.411). This use of language can be seen as a means of subverting the authority of the teacher, which can cause friction: Valentine, Sporton and Bang Nielsen (2008) note how ‘many teachers regard such practices as conspiratorial or as a threat to their own fragile authority in the classroom’ (p.383).
Other studies highlight the racism which migrant students recount having experienced at school. This can be seen to draw on wider discourses relating to migrants. Harklau (2007) notes that many migrant adolescents will ‘enter societies in which images of immigrants are largely unfavourable’ (p.643). Gunderson (2000) reports on the frequency of racism experienced by adolescents of different nationalities in schools in Canada, while Juang and Syed (2013) focus on discriminatory behaviour experienced by ‘Asian American, Latino, and European American’ students in schools in America (p.309). In the UK, Ruck, Tenenbaum and Sines (2007) find that attitudes of British adolescents towards asylum-seeker children are frequently negative.
Overall, therefore, the literature suggests that school is often a place of contested identity. It can be an environment where pupils are encouraged to embrace their cultural and linguistic differences; yet for those individuals who wish to remain less visible in terms of their ethnic identity, this can also be a source of complication. At the
same time, there may be greater pressure to conform linguistically to an English language ideal due to the dominant monolingual ideology.
While within school settings, it thus seems that there is limited scope for ethnic and linguistic identity construction, adolescent identity construction through hybridity or transnationalism has also been addressed in the literature. This will be discussed in the following section.