In both Sri Lanka and England there are policies stemming from central government that are designed to promote the acquisition of the national language(s) in schools, In Sri
104
Lanka, for example, all five principals commented that every student was required to study a second language and English as a link language. Policy Maker One said that in Sri Lankan schools, every student could learn Tamil as a second language and Sinhala as a second language together with English as a link language. In addition students could learn German, Japanese, French, Arabic, Malay, Hindi, Pali and Sanskrit in school also. Policy Makers Two and Four confirmed that the common curriculum ensured second language learning for all students which meant that if students’ mother tongue was Sinhala they had to learn Tamil as a second language. If students’ mother tongue was Tamil, they could learn Sinhala as a second language. As an international language students learnt English from primary to senior secondary level in the normal school system. The school system provided for language teaching from Grade Three, although children learnt to speak some English words through different activities from Grades One and Two. Policy Maker Three explained that learning all three languages was perceived as an important way to successfully implement multicultural education, and he said this challenge deserved more attention at the policy level.
In England there is a funding stream for English as an additional language in schools, and a number of initiatives operate at local level to support students for whom English is not their first language to acquire competency in curriculum subjects in part through the medium of their own language with the intention that they will gradually be inducted into education through English full time.
Despite official policy about language learning in schools, some of the comments made by policy makers and a summary of responses to teacher questions twenty five, twenty six and twenty seven shows one of the main issues and challenges raised by teachers and policy makers was language in all the schools in the current research. In Sri Lanka teachers’ perceptions about students’ language competence differed from the students’ reports to some degree. A number of concerns in relation to language issues were raised by teachers in all five schools in the questionnaire responses and focus group interviews. They reported that the main challenge was language in the multicultural classroom, for example:
• There was a serious issue with regard to the availability of suitably qualified staff. The policy makers pointed out ‘We don’t have permanent qualified teachr trainers to train teachers for second language teachers. Therefore we don’t have qualified teachers to teach Tamil language in the school.’ Some teachers in the five schools commented on their lack of Tamil language knowledge that meant they could not understand the
105
languages spoken by Tamil and Muslim students. ‘It is difficult to understand when Tamils and Muslims use Tamil language. Sometimes it makes me uncomfortable.’ Some teachers could not understand the language spoken by students. When students did not speak or understand Sinhala either, this affected their relationships with students and their ability to communicate with them effectively.
• In their school curriculum, students could learn Tamil as an additional language. However, Sinhala language teachers in all five schools, in particular Economics, Buddhism, Science, Maths, Science, Agriculture, Sinhala literature and Food Technology teachers, felt that some of their students did not have basic knowledge regarding grammar, and had difficulties with understanding difficult Sinhala words. Sometimes students’ language issues related to pronunciation, or understanding of Sinhala language. This issue could sometimes be a disadvantage, for example, teachers in the Mixed School and Girls’ School 1 said some students who were not Sinhala first language speakers could not do so well on written tests. ‘When some students, especially Muslims and Tamils, do not have proper Sinhala language skills, it is difficult to face written tests well’. Some non-Sinhala students were reported to have pronunciation issues in Sinhala which also affected Sinhala students, some of whom started to copy other students’ mispronunciation. ‘When some Muslims did bad pronunciation some Sinhala students also use the same pronunciation.
• Principals in the five schools commented that teachers helped students who had low achievements individually after school or during school time to develop their Sinhala language levels. ‘All teachers in my school help students with low achievement to develop their skills. Sometime it will be after school. Teachers individually help students who can not speak or write well’. However, some teachers in the Mixed School and Girls’ School 1 felt that they had to give disproportionate amounts of energy to teach students for whom Sinhala was an additional language.
• There were comments from some teachers that a few students could not speak any language properly whether they were Sinhala, Muslim or Tamil. These issues are very important in schools because, as Banks (1988) explains, communication breakdowns between teachers and students can lead to larger problems of student alienation, discontent and academic failure. On the one hand those students who were competent in more than one language clearly would have an advantage in the longer term. However, for some whose first language was not Sinhala and who found
106
learning through the medium of Sinhala difficult, there was a serious disadvantage because they could not do so well on written tests.
Not all teachers expressed negative comments, however. Some teachers in Girls’ School 1 indicated that some students had good language skills and others did not, therefore it was not possible to generalise. Some teachers across all five schools reported that they learnt different languages from students.
In England, data from the teacher questionnaire indicates that language issues were also perceived as one of the challenges in the school, but that this view was not universally held:
• Two teachers mentioned language and body language, one ‘understanding the students and their communication skills’, and one understanding students’ speaking ability and use of the English language.
• Whilst one teacher felt that homophones created problems for some students, other thought that EAL students’ command of English tended to be very good. One teacher said that sometimes s/he felt that students’ language problems related to the fact that ‘sometimes a language creates barriers, for example words and terms that have more than one different meaning’ However, according to the focus group interview, dance and music teachers said the command of English among students with EAL in their school commands of English was very good. In any case there was special provision for EAL students’ language difficulties in English. ‘I only have two students with EAL; however their command of English is very, very good.
• Problems could arise with the unplanned arrival of non-English speaking students, as the interview with the head teacher interview indicated. The head teacher explained that unplanned arrival of foreign nationals not speaking English could be a serious issue. There was not necessarily a person in school who spoke their language. There were no families in the local communities involved very much with the school who could assist in this situation. It was not always possible to access support in minority languages from the local authority.
It’s the unplanned arrival at school of, let’s say one or two. So, for example, there’s a girl and forgive me, I don’t know her ethnicity, but she’s non-speaking African, her family’s just arrived in Britain. They’re trying to get into a neighbouring school, they can’t, it’s full. We’ve got a space in Year 10, but we don’t have a national speaker of her language. If she arrives, it’s going to be very difficult to actually, we’d have to take some advice as to how we could her the support, so it’s the unplanned arrival of non- speaking British, non-speaking foreign nationals for whom we don’t necessarily have a
107
person in school who speaks their language. And, I said ‘unplanned’ because they’ve just arrived, and because we have spaces very often they’re directed towards us. • As Gardner (2004) explains, the Swann Report had recommended the appointment in
each local education authority (LEA) (now local authority) of an adviser for multicultural education who would be responsible for the development of pluralist approaches to counter racism and also ensure the provision of resources for EAL. These resources and support were not always available in the short term, however. In summary, teachers in schools in both countries reported that communicating with students whose first language was not Sinhala (Sri Lanka) and English (England) could be problematic as they themselves tended not to be competent in speaking more than one language. Relationships between teachers and students and between students could be jeopardised by inability to communicate verbally competently. However, the majority of students from all ethnic groups in the schools in Sri Lanka had positive perceptions that the teacher knew some expressions in the languages used by different students. In Sri Lanka the biggest proportion who replied ‘Always’ was Tamil (50%) (Table 10,
Appendix D). More White British had positive perceptions with some minority students in the English school
.
Half of the White British (fourteen), all Mixed (two) (White and Black African, White and Asian), one White East European and one Black African student were positive in their perceptions. However, eight White British, three Black African, three Asian British, one White East European and one Black Caribbean student were very negative in their response (Table 10, Appendix G).5.5 Chapter summary
In summary, there were Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim students in the samples in the Sri Lankan schools with a small number of Burghers and Malays. In the English school sample there were more White British students with some minorities who belong to different ethnic groups. All teachers in England had a degree and a teacher qualification, but nearly half of the teachers were not qualified beyond A-level GCE in Sri Lanka, despite government policy. Most teachers in both countries believed their school should offer multicultural education. In Sri Lanka, however, the level of qualifications appeared to be associated with attitudes towards educating students of other cultures than their own. Half of the teachers in Sri Lanka thought that teachers prefered to teach students of the same backgrounds as themselves, for example. The majority of teachers in Sri Lanka and England believed that it was possible to plan lessons and choose resources with different languages of various students’ groups in mind. However, the majority of
108
teachers in both countries did not have access to the kind of multicultural education training from which they felt they would benefit.
Language was a main issue and challenge in both countries in terms of communicating with, and between, students and teachers, and of privileging some students over others. More Muslim and Tamil students could read three languages than Sinhalese. In England the majority of students could read only English.
109