DISCUSIÓN

It is not the intention of this section to discuss differences in achievement between BMLC learners and pupils whose first language is English as portrayed in governmental documentation on EAL. I am intending to highlight firstly, instances of assumptions that BMLC learners are ‘normally’ outperformed by their peers who are native speakers of English, and secondly, that many suggestions on how to support BMLC learners are equally applicable to all pupils.

The BBC (2016) reported that white British pupils were underperforming in GCSE exams compared to BMLC learners. Within the text it becomes clear that the comparison is based on a specific group of white pupils, namely ‘working class pupils’. The document ‘Developing Quality Tuition’ presents two graphs (DfE 2011a:1). The first graph shows the ‘Percentage point gap in attainment between pupils

whose first language is English and pupils who have English as an additional language’. The graph is accompanied by text that explains the change in the ‘EAL attainment gap’ at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 between 2006 and 2010. Both the text and the graph assume it to be obvious that ‘EAL attainment gap’ means BMLC

learners are achieving lower results than their peers who are native speakers of English. It does not seem necessary to clarify this anywhere in the text. ‘EAL learners’ are

118 considered as one group regardless of criteria such as proficiency in English, life experiences including prior schooling or socio-economic background.

The second graph (DfE 2011a:1) is entitled ‘2010 KS2 attainment of pupils who were below L2 at KS1 (by first language)’. It examines the impact of tuition on pupils’

attainment in terms of progress and level 4+ achievement in mathematics and English. The text explaining the graph states that ‘tutored EAL learners outperformed their peers in both progression and threshold measures’. It also points out that ‘EAL learners

who received tuition outperformed non-EAL learners who did not receive tuition’. However, what is also shown in the graph but not mentioned in the accompanying text is that BMLC learners receiving tutoring also outperform tutored pupils whose first language is English. Not only what is said but also what is unsaid forms part of a discourse and constitutes certain knowledge (Carabine 2001).

‘Other factors influencing underachievement’ is a heading in ‘Aiming High’ (DfES

2003:9) followed by a list of factors that influence achievement and therefore might possibly contribute to underachievement. By phrasing the heading as quoted, it sounds as if underachievement is assumed as the norm for pupils from minority ethnic backgrounds including BMLC learners.

The document ‘Ensuring the attainment of pupils learning English as an additional language: A management guide’ (DfES 2007) includes on its content list a section on ‘Collecting and using data to identify and tackle underperformance’. The document

119 First language is the language to which the child was initially exposed

during early development and continues to use this language in the home and community. If a child acquires English subsequent to early development, then English is not their first language no matter how proficient in it they become (ibid:2)

Although the above quotation refers to consecutive bilingualism, there is no reference to the possibility that pupils who are proficient in English despite English not being their first language might achieve average or even excellent results rather than underperform. EAL seems automatically linked to underperformance despite the gap in attainment having narrowed, or even been reversed, and being more of a regional issue than consistent underperformance by all BMLC learners (ibid:8). The same document (ibid:13) claims that BMLC learners ‘are empowered to move to independence’, and the ‘aim of good teaching for bilingual pupils is to scaffold the learner’s progress to independence’ is listed as one of five key pedagogical principles.

The document fails to recognise the resourcefulness BMLC learners frequently display in order to develop their English as quickly as possible so they can cope with academic demands but also engage with their peers. BMLC learners’ ‘commitment to

independent study’ is identified, amongst others, by Safford and Costley (2008:143) and is evident in the phenomenographic findings of this study.

Another example of potential underestimation of BMLC learners in comparison to their peers with English as their first language is taken from the Key Stage 3 National Strategy document ‘Access and Engagement in Mathematics’ (DfES 2002a). It

explains that reading and writing in mathematics frequently differs from reading and writing in other curriculum areas and provides examples such as ‘the spatial arrangement of numbers and symbols carries different meanings – for example, 35 _is

120 learners. However, I would argue that this could equally be the case for pupils whose first language is English. The same applies to the learning of mathematical terms. I maintain that mathematical terms and definitions might be as new and unknown to English native speakers as they are for BMLC learners, and not as the document alleges ‘It is also important for pupils, bilingual learners particularly, to learn mathematical definitions’ (ibid:7). Many suggestions and concrete examples of good practice on how

to support BMLC learners found in the Key Stage 3 National Strategy subject guidance booklets (DfES 2002c) apply to all pupils.