Language across the mathematics curriculum in Sweden
... Beckers, Inspectrice de français, 36 rue de Perck, B - 1630 Linkebeek. Tel: +32
...... of Conor Lenihan TD (Minister of Parliament) as the Minister for Integration.
part of the document
Language Policy Division
Division des Politiques linguistiques
www.coe.int/lang
LANGUAGES OF SCHOOLING WITHIN A EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK FOR LANGUAGES OF EDUCATION: LEARNING, TEACHING, ASSESSMENT
Intergovernmental Conference
Prague, 8 10 November 2007
REPORT
By
Michael FLEMING Table of Contents
Part One : Conference overview 5
The Centrality of Values 6
Language as Subject and Language Across the Curriculum 7
Comparative Perspectives 8
Common Expectations and Standards 9
Next Steps 11
Part Two : Conference presentations 13
Opening 13
Session I. Language and Communication Competences in the Curriculum 22
Session II. Languages of Schooling, Socially Disadvantaged Learners and Equal Opportunities 28
Session III. Aspects of Language as Subject 29
Session IV. Aspects of Language Across the Curriculum 30
Session V. The Challenge of Assessment 34
Closing 36
APPENDICES 51
Appendix 1: Conference programme 53
Appendix 2: List of preliminary studies 57
Appendix 3: List of participants 59
Appendix 4: Languages of Education Diagram 69
Appendix 5: Case studies on disadvantaged learners 71
Part One : Conference overview
This conference was a follow-up to the conference held in Strasbourg in 2006 which launched the project on the languages of education. The central, overall aim of the project is to support member states when seeking to raise achievement in language. The intention is to develop a common framework of reference document to aid the development of policy and practice which will address key issues related to the language of schooling, including those pertaining to language as subject and language across the curriculum. The intention is also, in due course, to integrate into a general framework for the Languages of Education perspectives on foreign language teaching other languages present in education and the substantial work in this area that has already been undertaken by the Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe (see diagram in Appendix ).
This conference had three central aims:
to update participants on the work undertaken during the year since the last conference
to seek further feedback from participants on how the framework of reference for languages of education should develop, particularly with regard to the relationship between language as subject and language across the curriculum
to develop new contacts as well as to strengthen existing networks to help advance the project.
The undoubted success of this conference can be determined by the considerable progress made on some of the key issues related to the project since last year:
a clearer understanding of the centrality of values which must be at the heart of the framework of reference document
a more concrete grasp of some of the practical challenges related to language as subject and language across the curriculum and a better insight into the relationship between these two dimensions
a broader understanding, through a comparative perspective, of some of the commonalities and differences across countries with regard to a range of issues including assessment
a clearer perspective on the issue of whether a framework should contain specific descriptors or standards and how these relate to the issue of assessment
a more consistent use of terminology indicative of a greater level of coherence and common understanding.
There are of course still many questions to resolve but as a result of this conference the working group has a much clearer perspective on how to advance the project.
The Centrality of Values
Summarising the conference is in some ways fairly straightforward because there was a clear focus on key themes. However a short summary cannot easily do justice to the complexity of the issues as addressed in the presentations, group work and discussions. The complexity arises partly from the diverse issues which the project is intended to embrace. For example, language as subject has wide-ranging aims and content in its own right, and the inclusion of language across the curriculum introduces a further layer of complexity. However the complexity also arises from a tension between what could be seen as competing expectations:
to promote common approaches while recognising the necessity and value of local, contextual differences;
to address theoretical and policy issues while also accepting the need to impact on practice;
to recognise the desirability of a framework document which would present a stable reference point without limiting the need for ongoing change and development;
to promote the highest standards while accepting as a priority the need to support disadvantaged learners.
The format and scope of the framework document will need to address these dimensions.
The conference began and ended with a reiteration of the centrality of values, also reflected in one of the key pre-conference publications, A European Reference Document for Languages of Education? It has been firmly accepted from the inception of this project that language plays a crucial role in ensuring cultural diversity, democratic citizenship and social inclusion. The promotion of human rights and democracy is central to the mission of the Council of Europe, and the development of competence in the language of schooling is essential to ensuring the right to education for all through equal access to the curriculum.
This conference also addressed the wider concept of plurality as a significant part of the theoretical underpinning which drives the project. Education systems must be able to handle the different types of plurality which reflect those that exist in the wider society, ranging from a diversity of languages, cultures and social groups to different values and priorities. This presents a particular challenge to schools who must try to ensure that all pupils, whatever their circumstances or background, achieve success.
The conference also recognised the trend towards globalisation and harmonisation as, in many ways, a positive phenomenon of the modern world, particularly in a European context with the increasing acceptance of common values related, for example, to democratic citizenship and social inclusion. However concepts of globalisation and standardisation can also have negative connotations, as there is the danger of promoting a form of bland mediocrity and a flattening out of differences. This broad tension between embracing plurality and accepting and promoting unity and harmonisation has parallels with some of the specific challenges facing the languages of education project. This was evident for example in the discussions at the conference on the issue of the specification of common standards and outcomes. One of the challenges for the project is to provide the necessary support for different countries when developing policies without ignoring contingent contextual differences. This means that creating networks and sharing examples of policy development and practice must be key aspects of the project.
The development of a coherent and theoretically sound policy on language development in all its forms is essential for all education systems. However, one of the issues that was reiterated in group work and plenary discussion was the key role classroom teachers play in developing language and ensuring pupil success. This point arose for example in the panel discussion on approaches to supporting disadvantaged learners where several speakers reiterated the importance of professional development for teachers, since a key variable which determines the success of pupils is the quality of classroom teaching. When supporting disadvantaged learners it is important that teachers do not assume a common linguistic repertoire in their classes, that they have detailed knowledge of the strengths and limitations of individual pupils and they are helped to develop effective classroom strategies.
The common framework of reference will inevitably be concerned with theory and policy but the implications for practice need to be kept to the fore. A strong vision for the framework document located in a firm foundation of values will help to ensure that means and ends, process and product are properly integrated. For example, a commitment to democratic citizenship will have implications for the way oral work is conducted in the classroom; a commitment to cultural diversity will help to determine approaches to reading. In other words, a statement of values must not be seen merely as an initial stage which then gives way to concerns with specific policy and practice; a commitment to values must infuse every element and stage of the work.
Language as Subject and Language Across the Curriculum
Recognition of the importance of language across the curriculum derives, in part, from a value commitment to equal access to the curriculum for all. Access to the full curriculum requires proficiency in language which cannot be developed only in the context of language as subject. Conversely, learning any school subject is in large part a process of developing language. The inclusion of language across the curriculum adds another layer of complexity to the language framework, raising issues to do with the relationship between these two different dimensions and the different potential audiences for the framework.
Clearly the inclusion of a language across the curriculum dimension extends the frame of reference to all subjects, not just those specifically concerned with language. The potential audience for the framework document is therefore very wide. It also raises issues to do with the role teachers of language as subject might play both as advocates and in promoting whole school policies on language. The conference made progress in clarifying some of the key issues and questions involved in the relationship between language as subject and language across the curriculum. One of these has to do with describing the connection between the key language competences pertaining to both language as subject and language across the curriculum, but also between different individual subjects such as history, geography and mathematics. Does language as subject have distinct competences with which it is concerned that are different from those addressed in specific subjects? Does each subject have distinctive linguistic demands? What are the implications for teachers of the different subjects? What does teaching language mean in the context of other subjects? These are all questions which need to be addressed further by the working group in future stages of the project. A key function of a framework document would be to provide a focus for reflecting on and improving existing practice.
Language as subject is complex in its own right, embracing as it does wide- ranging issues to do with literature and the literary canon, reading, writing genres, speaking and listening and other media. At several points in the conference the importance of semiotic systems other than language was highlighted. The sheer complexity of the issues involved presents a considerable challenge in developing the project on languages of education but it also draws attention to the potential limitations of trying to encapsulate the entire content in one single framework document; this is an issue the working group will need to address.
Comparative Perspectives
Much of the activity undertaken by the working groups in the intervening year since the last project has focused on examining perspectives across countries. Summary reports of this work were presented at the conference and detailed written accounts were published in advance. Three groups focused on the linguistic aspects of teaching mathematics, sciences and history and in doing so examined the subject specific curricula of a range of different countries. Another group looked at communicative and language competences after two years of schooling and at the end of primary education across three countries, and a language as subject group examined expectations at the end of compulsory schooling in four countries. The comparative perspective was extended in both of the group discussions where delegates provided information on ways of describing expectations and approaches to national testing in their own countries. This comparative approach was fruitful because it highlighted significant trends.
Many countries have experienced considerable change in their education policies in recent years with many curricular developments in content and methods, some becoming more prescriptive and some less so. Frequent change is a feature of the modern education world and a European framework could have a useful function in assisting this ongoing cycle of review and reform by helping to create networks to disseminate documents and examples of good practice. The current situation, as it became evident from discussion groups and contributions during plenary sessions, includes the following:
There tends to be a shared philosophy and common understanding of the aims and methodological approaches to language as subject across countries. It was suggested in the plenary discussion that this phenomenon is a function of the increased sharing of ideas and perspectives in recent years through publications and attendance at conferences.
There is a growing recognition of the importance of language in the teaching of all subjects across many countries but still much work to do in formulating specific objectives and developing teaching approaches.
Policy on national assessment is varied; most, though not all, countries have national tests but these vary considerably in frequency and format. This theme was addressed in more detail in the second group work session.
Common Expectations and Standards
The issue of specification of minimum expectations or standards has been a central concern since the inception of the project and opinions have varied on the feasibility and appropriateness of specifying either common expectations at specific stages (for example at the end of primary and/or the end of compulsory school) or specific levels of achievement for assessment purposes through the different stages of formal schooling.
Although the terms expectations or standards are sometimes used interchangeably, it is useful to distinguish between them. The idea of specifying expectations can be usefully associated with the idea of entitlement. By specifying what a school leaver should be able to achieve in the different dimensions of language as subject (e.g. reading, writing, speaking and listening) there is the expectation that the education system has an obligation to provide teaching to achieve those ends. Thus the outcome statements formulated as expectations can be expressed at a reasonably broad degree of generality. The terms standards or levels of achievement is usually related more specifically to assessment and implies the expression of narrower outcomes that are assessable; such descriptors need to be more concrete and require more fine-tuning in specifying distinctive levels so that they can be used for assessment purposes.
The issue of common expectations was discussed specifically in one of the group sessions and was also addressed in some of the plenary discussions. The existing Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has had a significant role in the way language policies are defined and implemented in Europe and beyond. It has been translated into thirty-six languages and its impact has been considerable. One of the stated aims of the Framework was to help partners to describe the levels of proficiency required by existing standards, texts and examinations in order to facilitate comparisons between different systems of qualifications. The common reference levels were developed as a consequence and have been widely influential. It is against this background that discussions with regard to specification of common expectations or standards related to language as subject took place. Arguments voiced at the conference in favour of the development of a set of common expectations implicitly reflected the positive success of the CEFR: it was felt that such a document would help communication between countries and provide a core reference point and focus for the development of teacher training. If, as the group discussion indicated, the general aims and goals are similar across countries, the case for having a common set of expectations is strengthened.
However, there were also reservations expressed about having common expectations or standards placed at the heart of the framework. While recognising that the language of schooling is not always the pupils first language, it is important to acknowledge that development of competence in language as subject is usually different from second language acquisition. Specification of achievement in transparent terms in language as subject is more elusive and more prone to ambiguity. Important aims related to aesthetic awareness, personal growth and identity may be in danger of being marginalised or ignored in favour of those which are more easily subject to formulation in terms of outcomes. Another reservation expressed in the conference was that a common set of expectations might be in danger of underestimating the complex and diverse contexts of language as subject. At a more practical level the specification of expectations takes slightly different forms in the way they are structured and expressed in different countries; a common set of expectations would not necessarily accord with the way these are formulated in different countries. Furthermore, it might be possible to specify common expectations which would meet with widespread approval but these might need to be formulated at such a level of generality that their significance and impact would be minimalised.
How can these different opinions for and against the specification of expectations or standards be reconciled in the context of this project? At no point has there been any suggestion that a framework document should be in any way prescriptive but like the CEFR it should be a descriptive reference document aimed at helping the process of reflection on policies and practice. However the decision as to whether a set of common expectations or standards should be included in a framework document is still important because of the likely significance of such a step and the potential dangers of any misinterpretation and misuse of such a document. For example a set of standards expressed in bald terms and decontextualised could serve to promote mechanistic teaching and reductive assessment practices. In previous discussions the decision to include expectations or standards has been conceived as a stark choice. However the presentations and group discussions at this conference suggest that a resolution of this dilemma need not take such an absolute form. It became fairly clear that at the heart of the framework document should be a clear vision derived from a perspective on languages of education and a statement of values, not a set of expectations or standards. It is only by making values central to the project that any instruments developed will be fully understood and employed appropriately. However that does not necessarily mean that examples of curriculum expectations or standards of achievement should be excluded. These could be either devised by the working group through empirical research or presented as examples of existing documents from different countries to promote reflection. The point is that they would act primarily as exemplars rather than as an attempt to impose unity on diversity.
The discussion on assessment both in groups and in plenary sessions highlighted this as a particularly sensitive issue. Most countries have national tests but there are differences in approach, some operating tests far more extensively and at much younger ages than others. There seems to be a growing tendency to increase national tests but these do not always promote good practice in the classroom. For example the practice of teaching to the test is not helpful if the form of assessment is not itself of high quality. There may be a valuable role for a European framework document in helping countries evaluate their own practice in this area.
It was notable at this conference that there was a greater consistency in use of terminology. This was indicative of a greater level of mutual understanding both amongst members of the working groups and the delegates. The challenge of finding common uses of language is compounded when faced with translating specific terms. The glossary contained in the document A European Reference Document for Languages of Education? was therefore a useful addition. Although generally there was more consistency in use of terms, the word framework itself continues to have different connotations. For some, the word was used to refer to an actual list of pupil achievements whether these are referred to as expectations, reference levels, descriptors or standards. More commonly the term framework was used as an overarching term to refer to the outcome of the project in terms of a document for dissemination. For that reason the more cumbersome term framework document has been preferred in several of the publications to reinforce the view that a framework of outcome statements may be a part of, but will not be central to, the project.
Next Steps
Several themes emerged in the conference that will help the working group to determine the future stages of the project.
The fact that the education world is subject to constant change suggests that a single, static document evolved through many years of deliberation and research may be less appropriate for the contemporary context. Instead a more fluid set of theoretical perspectives, examples of policy and practical support may be more apposite. Furthermore, the complexity of the project, not just the potential volume of content, but the way topics interrelate and complement each other suggests that a single publication might be either simply too expansive or, more importantly, difficult to access and navigate. The emphasis on practice at the conference and the need to link ends with means also suggests that support mechanisms for teacher education and development is an early priority and should not necessarily be seen as a development that comes at a much later stage. The potential diversity of audiences also makes the format of the framework document an important issue. These considerations suggest that a more dynamic, flexible approach that is responsive to change is required. The suggestion of having an electronic format for a document was mooted in Strasbourg but the rationale for that idea became clearer and more convincing at this conference.
The framework document does need a common core or centre to provide the necessary stability, coherence and direction. The term languages of education has now become an accepted part of the discourse of conference delegates but it is helpful to be reminded of the important and in many ways challenging perspective embodied in that term. It represents an uncompromising commitment to plurality and it recognises that language education in all its forms should contribute to personal development and fulfilment, and to meaningful and enriching participation in society. At the core of the project is an holistic languages of education vision and commitment to values which will guide and motivate the project. The case then for the development of the project on several fronts as a dynamic enterprise without losing coherence is compelling.
One of the key themes which the project embraces is the importance that language plays in ensuring that disadvantaged learners have full access the curriculum and to derive maximum benefit from it. The importance of this issue was recognised by the delegates and addressed specifically in session II. The term disadvantaged learners is wide and may include native speakers, indigenous minorities or migrant children but in all cases it is important to recognise the degree to which the language of schooling may serve as a barrier which inhibits rather than promotes learning. This theme will need to be addressed by the working group to include further sharing of examples of practice.
The next conference is likely to be held in 2009 but there will be a need for consultation with member states as the work progresses in the intervening period. There is also scope for specific events (conferences, seminar, think-tanks) on focused topics organised in different countries. The tasks facing the working group in the intervening period might include: more detailed studies on aspects of language as subject that have not yet been addressed; a further comparative study of curriculum expectations across countries to explore the feasibility of producing a common set of expectations as an exemplar; further development of work on language across the curriculum to describe subject specific language competences and how these inter-relate with language as subject; a review of the studies that have been written so far with a view to using these as the basis for developing the framework document.
Part Two : Conference Presentations
This section presents a selection of some of the presentations given at the conference, with summaries of the group work and plenary discussions. Copies of the substantial pre-conference publications on the major themes are available from the Council of Europe and from the website (www.coe.int/lang).
Opening
The opening presentations summarised developments since the last conference in relation to the Council of Europes policies and priorities, and provided an overview of the conference. The opening welcoming speech by Deputy Minister for Education, Mr Jindrich Kitzberger endorsed the aims of the project and highlighted the challenges posed to a modern education system by frequent changes and reforms of different kinds. This theme of frequent change emerged again several times during the conference, particularly in the group work sessions and will be a factor which needs to be considered when determining the final format of the framework document. The Minister also highlighted the work going on in the Czech Republic to formulate the expected level of education that should be attained by all students who have completed the educational stage in question. The issue of whether it is possible or desirable to specify common standards or levels of attainment at a European level was also an important theme discussed at different points during the conference.
Joseph Sheils, Head of the Language Policy Division, provided an overview of some of the work undertaken in the intervening year and the key themes that have been addressed since the last conference. The concept of entitlement was less evident in the Strasbourg conference but it has emerged as a key idea to inform the debate about specification of language competence or standards. The work on Language Across the Curriculum was taken further during the year because of its fundamental importance in ensuring access to the full curriculum. Aspects of language as subject were also addressed through a comparative perspective.
Values are central to this project and this was reflected in the presentation by Piet-Hein van de Ven: curriculum decisions about policy and practice with regard to languages take place in the context of a complex network of aims and values.
The conference opening concluded with two short presentations aimed at illustrating the relationship between language as subject and language across the curriculum using concrete examples drawn from reading. Irene Pieper illustrated the difficulty in formulating statements of outcomes in relation to reading that are transparent and clear. Using an example from a Brecht short story she also illustrated the complex process involved in understanding meaning when reading a text. Helmut Vollmer, using examples drawn from geography, drew attention to both the volume of reading required within subjects and the diverse demands placed on the reader in a subject specific context.
Opening address: Mr Jindrich Kitzberger, Deputy Minister for Education, Czech Republic
Dear Representatives of the Council of Europe, Dear Experts, Dear Conference Participants,
Welcome to Prague, the Czech Republic, at a conference jointly organised by the Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. I have been really pleased to learn that the Council of Europe is once again initiating a project which is going to have an overall positive impact on compulsory school education.
In the area of languages, the Czech Republic, as well as other Council of Europe member states, has been successfully implementing the results of CoE projects reference documents and instruments developed by the Language Policy Division, especially The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, The European Language Portfolio, and numerous language policy studies. In our country, in our education system, we have done our best to implement and reflect basic principles of these documents in a wide number of contexts, such as the framework curricular documents, standardised assessment and Reference Levels for Czech as a Foreign Language.
The important role which the language of instruction plays in education has already been recognised and dealt with in the works of the prominent Czech pedagogue and thinker J.A. Comenius as early as in 17th century. When developing a modern education system we have been drawing on the rich pedagogic and didactic traditions, and we have been also aware of the new challenges posed by the changes in the contemporary world; gradual integration of the Czech Republic into the EU; gradual elimination of different kinds of barriers which were surrounding us in the past. As a result of this development, the importance of successful language communication as well as the importance of communicative skills and competences for successful learning has been reflected in our system of education.
At the moment we are implementing a vast curricular reform, in which the field of language and language communication plays an extremely significant role. Attaining an appropriate level in language is decisive for each childs further educational path. (In two weeks we will run an international seminar focused on the issues of primary reading and methods used to facilitate its learning.) It has become evident that the reform has to bring to a focus the fact that it is the area of language that may become the cause of various handicaps. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for us to consider this fact when ensuring equal opportunities. This issue is also dealt with in our strategic documents, such as in the Long-term Strategy of Education and Development of the Education System
Our ministry has made considerable efforts to reflect the importance of language communication in our basic strategic documents developed centrally, especially in the Framework Educational Programme, in which Language and Communication through Language constitutes the first of the nine educational areas. The very first sentence of this chapter says that the educational area Language and Communication Through Language ...holds a pivotal position in the educational process.
Our new Framework education programmes, the gradual implementation of which has started in this school year, formulate the expected level of education that should be attained by all students who have completed the educational stage in question and define everything that is common to and necessary within the compulsory education system, specifying the educational content ( expected outputs and subject matter. They stress key competences, their interlinking with educational contents and the application of acquired knowledge and skills in practical life. At the same time the Framework Education Programmes seeks to promote the creation of a favourable social, emotional and working climate throughout the process of education.
I understand that in many aspects the philosophy and the principles of our framework education programmes coincide with the philosophy and principles underlying your work towards the Framework of languages of education, i.e. with the theme of this conference. Therefore, we welcome this initiative of the Council of Europe, we support it, we hope to be able to actively follow the progress of your work in this area, and we look forward to the final product.
I trust that this conference will help to move considerably the work on this project forward, and I am honoured that our Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport has a chance to participate in the process of developing a new significant language policy instrument by hosting this Prague event. Once more I wish your difficult but interesting work all the success and to all of you a very pleasant stay in Prague.
Background to the conference: Joseph Sheils, Head of the Language Policy Division, Council of Europe
Deputy Minister Kitzberger, (Mr Jindrich Kitzberger, Deputy Minister for Education), ladies and gentlemen, the Council of Europe is very grateful to the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports for offering to host this event only the second intergovernmental conference on this topic, and the 1st intergovernmental conference outside Strasbourg.
I am pleased to welcome you the participants on behalf of the Language Policy Division of the Council. My colleague Johanna Panthier is responsible for the excellent conference preparation and coordination, in close cooperation with the Ministry here in Prague, and we both look forward to working with you over the next few days.
There is regular fruitful cooperation between the Council of Europe and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports; indeed, the Ministry plays a key role in supporting the Council in the development of international cooperation on education policy and practice in Europe. Perhaps the best example of this is the regular Prague Forum which is a major Council of Europe event for high level education policy deciders from our 47 member states. At the next Forum to be held here in May 2008 the theme will be the right to quality education.
This Forum theme will provide a timely follow-up to the meeting of the Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education held in Istanbul in May this year. The Ministers addressed the theme of Education Policies for Social Cohesion in Europe, with a focus on access to quality education for all young people, and recommended that CoE member states develop concrete measures for inclusive education.
Our project on the languages of schooling is therefore also very appropriate as the entitlement to quality education and inclusion are key elements in our approach. If ALL our learners are to have equal access to education, and if ALL are to be able to benefit equally from quality education, then all learners must be given whatever support is necessary so that they can acquire the language and other communication competences that are the prerequisite for successful learning in school.
This project is therefore not only of central importance to the overall education programme of the Council of Europe. It is also central to the mission of the Council to promote human rights. The European Convention on Human Rights states that no person shall be denied the right to education, which implies the right to support for developing the competences in the language of schooling that are necessary for equal access to the curriculum and teaching and learning processes.
Indeed, this is why, since our last (1st) conference in Strasbourg (October 2007) we have begun, among other things, to look at the entitlement of learners to minimum language and communication competences or standards. One subgroup in the project has begun to look at descriptions of the kinds of minimum language and semiotic communication skills that are implied in curricula and other materials at the end of primary and at the end of compulsory education for several subjects. Learners have a fundamental right to these competences if they are to progress successfully through the different stages of education.
Schools are full of language or languages - they are language-saturated institutions and all teachers are teachers of language. Language education takes place in all subjects and subject learning depends on language competences. Therefore, in this project we are looking at language used as a medium of instruction across the curriculum, and the specific kinds of discourse competences associated with various school subjects or groups of subjects. We are also of course looking at language as a specific school subject, and exploring the links between language as a subject and language across the curriculum.
Our project also has a strong social dimension in order to promote inclusiveness. We are concerned with the needs of different social groups and especially socially disadvantaged pupils, whether they have been born in the country or are recent immigrants. This is not only a linguistic matter but is also a social and cultural issue that has important implications for school ethos and management. Social disadvantage is an area that all the project subgroups have been asked to take into account and one that we may wish to develop in more depth in the project.
The projects aim is to develop a framework of reference for the languages of schooling, to include both Language as Subject and Language across the Curriculum.
In keeping with our policy of promoting a coherent approach to the development of the learners plurilingualism, we would wish to place this within the broader context of languages of education i.e. all the languages in the curriculum, and also taking into account the other languages in the plurilingual repertoire of learners. We will present initial thinking on this in a few minutes after our General Rapporteur, Mike Fleming, sets the scene with an overview of the conference. Before he does so, let me remind you of some of the work done since our last conference. The Working Group that met after the last conference set up a number of subgroups that have produced a range of studies to support our reflection and discussions and we are very grateful to all those who accepted to help us.
As you will have seen, we have prepared about 30 studies which are published in 7 volumes covering several key topics for this conference. Needless to say, this presented quite a challenge for the staff of the Language Policy Division, and I am sure you join with me in acknowledging the remarkable achievement of Johanna Panthier in ensuring that these texts were made available in both official languages in time for this conference. Please feel free to translate any of the documents simply send us a written request and we will grant you permission.
These documents provide us with further valuable material for our reflections on a reference framework for languages of schooling. They deal with:
- language as a subject (Text, Literature and Bildung)
- language across the curriculum in primary school and in secondary school (history, maths, sciences)
- evaluation and testing.
We have also a draft discussion document that proposes some fundamental principles that could underpin an overarching policy statement what might be a coherent vision of the languages of education all languages in the curriculum and of the school (languages of schooling, foreign languages, minority languages).
I draw your attention also to the recently published proceedings of the conference we organised with the Jagellonian University in Kraków in 2006, edited by Waldemar Martyniuk whom we thank, and which is available here for participants.
The project Working Group will take the project forward taking into account the ideas and views expressed by you the delegates at this conference. Our discussions here will be enriched by the Working Group members and also by a number of other independent experts who have helped us over the past year.
On behalf of Johanna Panthier and myself, once again our thanks to the Czech authorities for their generous and enthusiastic support, and we wish you a fruitful and enjoyable conference.
Piet-Hein van de Ven:
The LE Perspective: Complexities and Orientations
1 Point of departure
Language plays a crucial role in ensuring cultural diversity, democratic citizenship and social inclusion. It thus has a key role to play in promoting social cohesion. Proficiency in language is essential to ensure access to the school curriculum. I will highlight the fact that curriculum decisions about policy and practice with regard to languages take place in the context of a complex network of aims and values.
2 Complexities
There are different forms of plurality. I present three dimensions, each in itself complex, and together a sum of complexities.
2.1 Forms of plurality
Linguistics and literature studies, seen from an educational perspective, represent a pluriform domain. The academic studies are to be characterised as a polyparadigmatic domain, with several, different subdisciplines. Language and literature do have several systemic dimensions (syntaxis, semantics, pragmatics; literary and social repertoires) and different discourses (genres). Even the school subject language/literature is a field with paradigmatic debates, and shows a rather complex relation between educations theory and practice.
Contemporary societies, particularly in Europe and specifically in their education systems, have to cope with various types of plurality, often leading to various conflicts:
Multiple forms of knowledge (interpretive, instrumental, objectivistic)
Multiple resources for acquiring/constructing knowledge
Multiple methods for acquiring/constructing knowledge
Multiple languages and other semiotic systems in which knowledge and other forms of information, expression and communication are built
Multiple populations, social groups and group origins and histories, socio-economic differences, cultural references, religions, educational cultures
Multiples identities between individuals and communities, within individuals
Multiple views on, systems and cultures of education
Multiple economic systems
Multiple principles for action and values
Democratic education systems have to cope with these multiple forms of plurality as best they can, so as to ensure success and a promising future for as many pupils as possible. This is important in order to contribute to social cohesion in spite of inequalities and to promote the knowledge society, which now conditions both economic growth and cultural development. An education system must be able to handle various types of plurality because its purpose is to help the wide range of young people it caters for to become active, responsible and diverse members of a pluralist society, especially children and young people from various disadvantaged backgrounds. And because plurality stimulates learning: seeing differences, looking from different perspectives learning is entering different discourses.
2.2 Globalisation and unifying tendencies
Three distinct trends which nevertheless interconnect in complex ways correlate with the above ideas.
Globalisation processes with somewhat standardising effects: industry and market branches, clothing fashions and many cultural practices, internet, English as lingua franca and the Anglo-American culture.
As a counteract there is the national unification, uniting people around values such as nation, people, heritage, history and even ethnic group or religion, and almost always common language as the hallmark of common identity. Promoting the main language of school education is usually an important educational aim.
The third trend is rather a process of European co ordination against a background of harmonisation or standardisation. In various social and economic areas, European directives and standards are the accepted authority in the EU. The considerable success of the multi level scales in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the often restrictive use made of them (the CEFRs full potential for diversifying and contextualising often remains under-utilised) are an example of such European authority..
2.3 The knowledge society
Science and technical and technological innovation are now regarded as conditioning the future in a world of economic and scientific competition with which Europe can keep pace only by advancing in high tech areas. Europe should stimulate more people to achieve a higher level of education. A main argument is that this knowledge is continuously expanding and changing. This emphasises the principle of lifelong learning. But the renewal and increasing specialisation of knowledge does not concern all areas of knowledge: In humanities and social sciences, the emphasis tends to be more on reflective and interpretative areas of knowledge (which have different approaches to empirical data)..
The European enterprise demands accepting the various forms of plurality on the one hand and the effort to harmonise, homogenise, unify or standardise to some extent on the other, including the relationship between knowledge and competences. The learning objectives are formulated nowadays chiefly in terms of competences. But there is discussion on the concept of competence, on the relation between knowledge and competence, and on what core competences and key competences should be. But in any case education concerns: learning to learn, for lifelong learning; developing awareness, understanding and critical mastery of the many resources.
3 Languages in education, languages of education, language policies
Pupils mastery of the main language(s) of schooling and the schools recognition (or non recognition) of the multiple languages and forms of discourse contributed by the groups of pupils attending it are important in achieving the aims of academic success, social integration and identity-building. What languages are involved?
We can illustrate some rather important thinking on the field of languages in education:
That not all the languages in a school are languages of that school, and as such languages of school education. Nevertheless, all languages should receive some acknowledgement in classroom practice or via particular teaching resources, and in the official school setting rather than just the playground. Plurilingual education also entails this "ordinary" recognition of the value of plurality.
That the languages represented in a school clearly fall into various categories and differ in status as far as the educational institution is concerned, but that they nevertheless form a single body, within which change and movement is possible. Thus a regional language may be or become one of the main languages of schooling while a foreign language may be used partially or in whole, permanently or temporarily, for teaching other subjects.
Whatever the language of schooling, it forms the foundation and keystone of all the languages of that school. It is the special and critical contribution of what is rightly called the main language of schooling to achieving a school's objectives and the success of its pupils. This is also the main though not the only focus of efforts to secure social cohesion and integration, as well as of complementary efforts on behalf of cultural transmission and acceptance. Somewhat less obvious, though, is the equally key contribution of the main language of schooling to achieving the goal of plurilingual education. Whereas it is often made out that such plurilingual education is solely the domain of foreign or "other" languages, it is in fact also dependent, almost as a constituent element, on the position and role of the main language in the overall educational provision.
That one of the main issues is clearly the relationship between the main language of schooling and the languages and language varieties that appear in pupils' repertoires. Three possible options may be identified:
Make no basic changes and continue with tried and tested requirements and syllabuses, on the grounds that this is the only, and the fairest, way of offering young people from migrant or disadvantaged backgrounds the tools to enable them to become part of and make progress in a society where the required language skills and a certain form of general culture are as necessary as ever, if not more so.
Attempt a remedial approach, stressing the rules and discourses of the language as a subject, in its formal, communicational and reflective aspects, while varying the weighting given to these different modes and giving less emphasis to cultural contents literary and others that are then deemed to be less essential. The emphasis on remediation in language as subject might replace the learning of other languages.
Effect a shift towards more inclusive curricula and methods aimed at securing greater transversality and breaking down barriers, as part of a more comprehensive and economical (in the sense of curricular economy and greater cost effectiveness) approach to the development of young peoples linguistic and cultural level of competence and knowledge. This is the plurilingual educational approach. The challenge is then not just to ensure that it is not the preserve of a selected group a sort of school elite but also to show that this educational model is better equipped and more appropriate than others for the schooling of young people who are likely to experience difficulties both in education and, later, in their general social lives.
There is no attempt here to choose between the different options, which in any case may coexist within an education system, according to stream or stage in the curriculum, and lead to so-called mixed approaches. However, since the first two are the most frequently encountered and are the most familiar, what follows is particularly concerned with the third option, which is consistent with the principles and aims laid down, though it is certainly not the easiest one.
4 Aims and values
4.1 Aims of education:
There are different views on education, on educations outcomes. These aims are formulated in values and principles, cognitions and capacities. Sometimes they overlap each other, sometimes they are seen to be as separated and competing.
The main concept is that of Bildung, which might include other educational aims like:
Personal growth (forming identity)
Reproduction of cultural heritage
Developing competences for economic growth (knowledge society)
Promoting equality between (groups of) people
There are different, but important learning processes:
Transmission/construction of knowledge, skills, attitudes
Learning to learn, metacognition
Education is supposed to deliver several cultures and provide learners with competences as social agents, covering forms of knowledge connected to subject areas:
Ethics, civic, emotional, creative, critical, aesthetic, linguistic, technical, scientific, physical.
Bildung: means to develop and bring out the full potential of a human being, based on his/her nature, but stimulated and structured by education (nurture). This dynamic concept encompasses the product or relative state reached by a human being as well as the process of becoming educated/becoming ones own self. During this process the mental, cultural and practical capacities as much as the personal and social competencies are being developed and continuously widened in a holistic way (Vollmer, 2006, p. 7).
We must consider what could be the impact of all these outcomes for the network. In sum, what I have opted for here is to accommodate a variety of views, suggesting some guiding concepts to frame this discussion of the languages of education.
Session I. Language and communication competences in the curriculum
This session reported on some of the work in progress since the last conference based on comparative perspectives across several countries.
The first presentation by Jean-Claude Beacco provided a perspective on language demands within subjects and summarised some of the challenges involved in defining both subject specific and more general cross-curricular language competences. He gave some indication of how the language used with the subjects addressed by the working groups (mathematics, science and history) varies in its orientation. The primary school context provides a useful focus for examining the relationship between language as subject and language across the curriculum because these are often in practice integrated through the work of a single class teacher.
The presentation by Christine Barré de Miniac looked at communicative and language competences at the end of primary education across three countries (France, Saxon Germany and Norway). The presentation highlighted both similarities and differences in the different contexts and emphasised in particular the need to understand theoretical perspectives underlying the different curricula.
The presentation by Laila Aase examined the language as subject competences at the end of compulsory schooling in four countries (England, Romania, Norway, Germany) looking at commonalities and differences.
The plenary discussion posed a question as to whether there is a distinctive role for language as subject if the key message about the role of subjects in language development is taken seriously. This will be an issue for the working group to consider. There was also comment that there may be a difference between the curriculum as specified in policy documents and the reality as experienced in the classroom. This point emphasises the need for a framework document to support practice as well as theory and policy.
Jean-Claude Beacco: Presentation of work on languages across the curriculum (LAC)
Thinking about languages used at school logically led, from the outset, to the identification of a specific area, that of the languages used for the teaching of school subjects (or contents), which is the task of teachers who are not language specialists. This issue has already been recognised in the seminal text by H.J. Vollmer made available for the Intergovernmental conference of 16-18 October 2006. It has been further explored at the meetings of the ad hoc Group on languages of schooling, notably in connection with a seminar organised in February 2007 in Oslo, courtesy of the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research and the University College of Oslo. That encounter generated reports by three discussion groups (focusing on the linguistic aspects of teaching and learning mathematics, sciences and history) and prompted studies, some of which will be presented at this conference or are available in published form. During that seminar a fourth group looked at primary education which entails issues of a similar nature (teaching by a single teacher of language and sciences). Its work is described in a specific study and will be presented separately.
I was involved in the group covering history, but I will make a few points concerning the work under way as a whole, not in order to sum it up in all its complexity but rather to pinpoint a few considerations that, in my eyes, suggest how the different threads might contribute to the forging of an integrated reference document for languages of schooling.
The language dimension of scientific teaching has long been recognised: the problem here, in relation to drawing up a common European reference document for languages of schooling, is to try and analyse the issues using specific operational descriptors; to do so, we need to take account of the forms of discourse used in the classroom, the diversity of scientific epistemologies and also of teaching methods and educational cultures.
In terms of empirical research, the following priorities have emerged:
by definition, the necessary data are scattered across different subject curricula, by country, by pupil age, by exam type etc. A significant corpus of teaching curricula and examination tasks (school-leaving level) must be formed, describing the conventions and assumptions governing the language specific to each discipline. Examination of this documentation must be backed up by the observing of teaching activity or interviews carried out for surveys;
the hypotheses to be checked for these documents concern whether they define cross-curricular language competences and how these are defined;
there must also be a focus on how these teachers are prepared for managing their language responsibilities within their subject teaching (during initial and in-service training), as this certainly entails important specific needs.
In terms of initial provisional observations on the training of pupils, the following has been noted:
a tendency within certain curricula not to restrict teaching to the content/knowledge to be passed on but to focus on an initiation in the functioning of science and in particular on the building of knowledge from a sociology of sciences perspective or a more epistemological viewpoint;
the presence of objectives relating to the role and impact of sciences in life in society, often connected to education for citizenship (concerning sustainable development for example);
the presence of tasks and activities for pupils geared to the use of knowledge and skills taught in given social situations.
These trends underline the importance of educational goals, other than the expected cognitive outcomes, (development of thinking and conceptualisation) such as developing critical assessment of the use of scientific results.
In terms of drawing up a reference document for the uses of language in the teaching of subject content, the following points emerged:
despite the cross-curricular nature of language in teaching content, that use varies according to the subject. By way of an initial approximation, we could state that:
mathematics seem abstract in the extreme and have a language (or languages) of their own;
for the "exact" sciences, language serves above all to convey and discuss hypotheses and results, as the existence of products of scientific activity is established beyond their expression in language (measurements, observations etc);
for "social" or "human" sciences, language is their very form of existence, as history does not exist as such outside the realms of its expression in language;
the major presence of modes of semiotic communication in addition to verbal language and, therefore, the need to examine their specific characteristics, inter-relations and connections with speech;
the need to establish shared terminology placing stronger emphasis on the discourse aspects (forms of speech present in the classroom and not solely spelling, morphosyntactic correction or accuracy of vocabulary);
within subject teaching, it must be checked whether primary scientific language (= intended for members of the scientific community) is present and in what circumstances; forms of language transposing concepts or putting them in more accessible terms are likely to be found, and the recurrent features of teacher's statements for example (how are definitions or explanations given) or of textbook material (how is it sought to make the text readable and comprehensible for pupils) must be characterised;
the language competences expected are differentiated, as they hinge on the ability to interpret different forms of discourse: scientific language (in its more accessible form), forms of interaction in the classroom (teachers-pupils, inter-pupil), types of description, demonstration and argumentation etc. Interaction in these teaching activities is not all centred on scientific language;
while it is relatively easy to identify activities of written comprehension (reading of textbooks etc) or oral comprehension (statements by the teacher), identifying those relating to oral production is less straightforward: they depend (doubtless with the exception of mathematics) on didactic choices made fairly independently of scientific language as a whole (considered beyond the reach of pupils in production mode) and may well come down to indistinct text forms unrelated to any kind of socially attested forms of discourse. This relative lack of generic determination is likely to lead to methodological ambiguities and therefore have ramifications for the description of tasks to be carried out by the pupils and their assessment: in this case, the pupils do not have a sufficiently precise model for the texts to be produced. This hypothesis should be checked empirically for both the oral and written production expected of pupils, which may be more closely geared in some cases to reference scientific language or disclosure. Whatever the case, it is important that pupils are taught to distinguish the norms, constraints and culturally variable types of discourse generated by science activity (and the communities which discuss it) from those used to convey this information in the classroom;
this highlights the relevance of the notion of discourse genre, none too familiar to subject teachers, whose teaching may be effective in terms of linguistic competence (within the meaning of the CEFR, 5.2) and scientific terminology but are not necessarily prepared for helping pupils learn the necessary forms of discourse.
Such thinking is an indication that, on the whole, the question of the aims and practice of language teaching within subject areas is still a basic concern that has not yet fully found its modus operandi and for which co-operation between the member states is indispensable. But it has been possible to identify avenues, in the form of research and experiments conducted in this field, which may lead to the full development of effective engineering tools and teaching methodologies.
Christine Barré-de Miniac: Communicative and Language Competences at the End of Primary Education
The aim of this working group on primary education was to ascertain whether school curricula laid down requirements regarding communicative competence in the various subjects taught at this level of schooling, that is to say the language of instruction as a subject per se and other subjects on the primary school curriculum.
The group adopted the following approach:
The study focussed on competence development between the second year of schooling and the end of primary education, corresponding to either the fourth or the fifth year depending on the country in question. The presentation at this conference is solely concerned with the competences pupils are expected to have developed by the end of primary education. This idea of the end of primary education does not have the same significance from one country to the next. However, one characteristic of primary education common to all the countries is that, at this level of education, pupils have the same teacher for all subjects. As a result, neither the teacher nor the pupils may be mindful of the concept of separate subjects. At all events this distinctive feature of primary education as compared with other levels of education is shared by all the countries.
In the light of the curricula studied the group also decided that the analysis would concern all semiotic competences, not just linguistic ones - speaking, reading and writing - but also producing tables and graphs, organising data, etc. Lastly, the study focused on the curricula of three education systems, those of France, Saxony-Anhalt (Germany) and Norway, the authors' countries of origin.
The question is therefore whether the curricula of these three countries determine communicative competences (semiotic/linguistic) in various subjects which pupils are expected to have acquired by the end of primary school (the 4th or 5th year). What main trends can be noted? What similarities and differences exist?
Following a brief overview of the results of the study of the three curricula, an attempt will be made to identify the main themes and the questions raised at the end of this initial stage in the work.
France
The curricula for the 4th and 5th years of primary education determine cross-curricular abilities to be acquired, one of which is command of language and of French. It is specified that these abilities are developed in the cross-curricular context of all the learning processes and the work must be geared to the competences aimed for at the end of primary education. These competences are of two kinds: general and specific.
General competences concern all the intellectual activities brought into play by the pupil and all the forms of communication that take place within the classroom, for example a pupil giving a talk to the class on what he/she has been doing. This competence should be worked on in a number of subject areas.
In the case of specific competences the aim is to build the knowledge and skills specific to each branch of learning. Examples are reciting poetry and writing a caption for a geographical document. These competences are covered by a syllabus specific to the subject areas.
A compulsory time-table is established for work on these cross-curricular competences, which is a sign of the importance attached to them.
Saxony-Anhalt (Germany)
The importance of linguistic and semiotic competences as a prerequisite for further learning is mentioned among the guiding principles of primary education.
This aspect is also covered by a specific section of the syllabus for each subject: German, mathematics and general culture. Mention is made of the subjects' contribution to the development of certain basic competences, in particular reading and writing. For instance, the German syllabus states that acquiring methods and techniques for understanding texts is essential to successful learning in all other subjects.
Less explicit reference is made to the semiotic and linguistic competences to be developed in each subject area, although they do exist. In mathematics and science the abilities to describe, explain and argue are mentioned as competences required by the end of primary education. For example, a 4th year pupil must be not only capable of performing additions and subtractions, but must also be able to explain how he or she proceeds.
Norway
The importance of linguistic and semiotic competences as a prerequisite for further learning is also mentioned in the Norwegian documents. Pupils are not required to pass thresholds or succeed in exams before moving on to the next level. However, there are standards of competence they are expected to have acquired, inter alia by the end of the 4th year, with priority given to linguistic and semiotic competences.
During the first five or six years of primary education subjects are to a large extent integrated in cross-curricular themes, but there are separate syllabuses for each subject area. These all include requirements concerning what could be termed the subject specific discourse. Competences are therefore defined for each subject area in terms of "being able to express oneself orally and in writing." For example, being able to express oneself in mathematics means being capable of describing one's thought process and explaining discoveries ... by means of diagrams, tables and so on.
Conclusion
It can be seen from this first stage in the work that, although the curricula of the three countries studied show some similarities, there are also differences between them which should not be disregarded and must be more closely examined.
Similarities
In all three of the curricula studied the issue of languages and linguistic competences as an essential component of any learning process is regarded as key.
An awareness (albeit slightly less clear-cut) of the importance of competences in semiotic systems other than language is also evident in the three curricula.
Again in all three cases these are recent concerns (they emerged over the last three or four years).
The same concerns can be noted in the various subject areas and become more marked at the end of primary education, when the different subjects come more strongly into focus.
Lastly, it can be seen that there is an awareness of the need to develop and take into account cross-curricular competences common to the different subjects.
Differences
On first analysis it seems that differences exist as regards the theories of language and communication applied in the curricula. However, are these real differences or differences in the extent to which the underlying linguistic theories are explained? The study was too brief to allow any final conclusion to be drawn at this stage. The initial assessment nonetheless shows that consideration of the language and communication theories - and semiotic theories in general - which underpin European education systems is an essential prerequisite for defining a common European framework of reference for language as subject and for language across the curriculum.
First group work session
In the first group discussion the comparative perspective was extended across the countries represented at the conference. Participants were asked to report on the degree to which the expectations at the end of primary and at the end of compulsory school in their own contexts are similar or different in scope and content to those presented. They were also asked whether it would be feasible/desirable to have descriptions of expectations in a European framework.
This summary will not attempt to capture differences and similarities across specific countries but will instead report on more general conclusions with the intention of providing some starting points for the further analysis of other curricula and identifying pointers for the development of a framework.
Many countries have experienced considerable change in their education policies in recent years. The fact that we live in an education world of frequent change means that a framework needs to be formulated with a realistic recognition of that reality in relation to its structure and content. A lot of very valuable material exists in different countries and it would not necessarily be appropriate to seek to distil one single, static list of expectations which would necessarily be limited in scope, but instead to provide various support documents, including links to other sources of information. Most curricula formulate expectations (in terms of achievements) for language as subject for different levels of schooling some include expectations for language across the curriculum.
It was reiterated however that a list of expectations may be different from what happens in practice and a framework document would need to bear this in mind and seek ways of developing practice. However there was general agreement that different countries shared the same values and philosophies with regard to language education. This insight was addressed in the plenary discussion with the observation that over the last ten years there has been intensive international exchanges of knowledge and ideas as explanation for why so many countries are moving in a similar direction. There clearly are differences regarding approaches to curriculum design, for instance ranging from examples of more open curricula to others with more detailed specifications. There is considerable variation in context: one official language, two official languages and in some cases one or more different languages of ethnic minorities. The concept of literacy is receiving considerable attention in some countries and a framework might provide support in clarifying different types of literacy.
There were arguments both for and against the formation of a common set of expectations in a European framework. It would help to enhance communication between countries and prompt policy makers to reflect on different approaches and possibilities. If, as the group discussion indicated, the general aims and goals are similar, the case for having a common set of expectations is strengthened. On the other hand, the diverse contexts for the teaching of language as subject (different cultural backgrounds, differing ways of approaching identity and diversity, different policies concerning ethnic minorities and migrants) makes the formulation of a common set of detailed expectations challenging. It would be possible to formulate a common set of expectations but these might be at a level of generality that might not impact significantly on practice.
Session II. Languages of Schooling, Socially Disadvantaged Learners and Equal Opportunities
A panel of six speakers from different countries (Norway, Lithuania, Germany, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Ireland) presented brief case studies on how issues related to disadvantaged learners are experienced and addressed in different contexts. The general term disadvantaged learners (or vulnerable groups) embraces a number of different categories. It includes native speakers of the language of schooling who may have particular learning needs related to language competence. Indigenous minorities may be vulnerable in terms of their rights to develop bilingualism and bi-literacy.
The category disadvantaged learners may also embrace migrant children. It is clear from the PISA analysis that many migrant children succeed but the fact remains that in many cases migrant children perform at significantly lower levels than might be expected and the performance is often related to competence in the language of schooling.
Texts of three of the presentations are presented in full in Appendix 4. A number of general points emerged from the session. The importance of professional development for teachers was stressed by several speakers; developing specific teaching strategies is as important as developing policies and structures. In some countries the performance of boys is of particular concern and this is a matter that needs to be addressed specifically. Language problems often arise because of a limited facility with academic language. This was described by Ingrid Gogolin as bildungssprache or academic language competence Practical measures include the need to individualise and differentiate teaching and the importance of providing teachers with detailed information about pupils. It is important that teachers do not assume a common linguistic repertoire in their classes. In some countries small schools particularly in rural areas may limit the possibilities of providing adequate provision. The importance of early screening and the need to provide support for adults as well as pupils were both emphasised by different speakers.
Session III. Aspects of Language as Subject
The presentations in this section provided a further overview of some of the work which was undertaken during the year since the last conference. The language as subject working group presented perspectives on the literary canon and on writing genres in language as subject.
Mike Fleming suggested that arguments about the canon are sometimes polarised in unhelpful ways. Although the canon is often associated with tradition and the imposition of arbitrary texts, it can be argued that some form of prescription of key texts is part of pupil entitlement. The presentation ended with a list of focused questions which policy developers might consider in relation to the canon: does the specified canon leave sufficient flexibility for teachers and pupils to exercise some choice? are there mechanisms for regularly reviewing the literary curriculum? are teachers involved in discussions about the appropriate choices of text and authors? is there a sufficient balance between national texts and texts from other cultures? does the specified curriculum pay sufficient attention to process as well as content? does the curriculum take account of the need to engage pupils interests in wider reading? is the definition of text sufficiently broad to represent contemporary culture? Questions of this kind were thought to be a useful example of how a framework document might promote reflection and challenge without taking a prescriptive stance.
Laila Aase identified differences between language as a subject and language across the curriculum and illustrated varieties of writing genres through examples of formal examinations in different countries. Writing in language as subject differs from writing in the language across the curriculum in the broad scope of genres and purposes for communication. Whereas in language across the curriculum the emphasis is on text forms specific to a school subject, language as subject has overall responsibility for developing text competence in a variety of genres used and valued in society. The broad scope of language as subject also applies to variations in style for expressing nuances of meaning. It also implies an awareness of the total context of communication: purpose, personal involvement, discourse etc. Language as subject thus seeks to widen the scope of text from everyday language in two different ways: towards a precise analytic language and towards a poetic, experimental language. These writing competences may be expressed in different ways in curricula and exam tasks in different countries: as genres (write a story, write an article, write a report, write a letter) or as modes of expression (discuss, present, inform, analyse, argue, reflect upon). The examples from different national examinations illustrated how language for different purposes (e.g. to inform, explain, describe) and different genres are approached in practice. The plenary discussion pointed to the dangers of inadvertently promoting a mechanical approach to teaching; if there is too much emphasis on the fulfilment of external requirements in the form of checklists of issues to address and genres to cover in a teaching programme.
Session IV. Aspects of Language Across the Curriculum
Language across the curriculum has been a key focus in the project: access to the full curriculum requires proficiency in language which cannot be developed only in the context of language as subject. Also, learning any school subject is in large part a process of developing language. The examples from science, mathematics and history highlighted some of the key considerations.
One of the central issues here is how the language across the curriculum dimension relates to language as subject and how this should be addressed in a languages of education framework given the target audience(s). Language education continues in biology, in history, in mathematics and in other subjects. This happens often in a more hidden way which is not always apparent to teachers and students. Language learning is always part of subject learning, or to put it more radically: subject learning is always language learning at the same time.
The introductory presentation by Helmut Vollmer reproduced below provided an overview of language across the curriculum with particular attention to the distinctive features of language use in subject specific contexts. The presentations on mathematics, history and science drew on the detailed analyses and case studies published as studies prior to the conference:
- Sigmund Ongstad drew attention to the strong priority of disciplinarity within the tradition of mathematics (where the emphasis is more on a linear approach to content knowledge) with less emphasis on discursivity (with more attention to language and communication elements).
- Jean-Claude Beacco emphasised the value of systematically exploring the nature of history discourse in the classroom in order to highlight the various aspects specific to historical knowledge and history teaching.
-Helmut Vollmer drew attention to the growing awareness about the importance of language learning and language use within science teaching and highlighted ways in which this awareness needs to be extended and consolidated.
This session concluded with short presentations from Irene Pieper and Jean-Claude Beacco on linking language as subject and language across the curriculum. The focus on reading highlighted the commonalities across these areas and the importance of developing common perspectives on the developing of reading as a key competence (see text by Irene Pieper on the Council of Europe website ( HYPERLINK "http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Conference_EN.asp#TopOfPage" http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Conference_EN.asp#TopOfPage).
Helmut J. Vollmer: Introduction to Session on LAC and its Links to LS
1. This morning we have heard about language education in LS and all it carries with it, all it is supposed to do, e.g. develop basic writing and speaking competencies in a number of genres, getting acquainted with the (dominant) culture(s) and support the identity-building of young people through reading literary and other texts, dealing with fictional characters as inspirations or models, and productively mastering different genres in writing. All of this is highly mediated through language as communication, and, as we know, the outcome of these learning processes are certain elements and types of cultural skills and knowledge, of attitudes, of values, of procedural competences in dealing with texts/sources of information and, of course, communicative competences.
2. But language education does not stop there; language education also takes place in all other subjects, which are considered as non-language subjects: language education continues in biology, in history, in maths, in sports etc. This happens often in a more hidden way, it is less obvious to both teachers and students alike, but it does take place: Language learning is always part of subject learning, or to put it more radically: Subject learning is always language learning at the same time.
3. The learning of subject matter, of subject-specific knowledge like in physics, geography or math cannot happen without the communicative base, without linguistic support and mediation: It is only possible with the help of appropriate language comprehension and use, which have to be acquired at the same time. Language competence, therefore, is an integral part of subject competence it is not an addition outside of it, it is not a luxury, it is a necessary component of subject competence and has to be explicitly developed alongside with it. This is true for all subjects, across the whole curriculum, thats why we speak of Language Across the Curriculum (LAC).
4. The language component in subject-specific contexts is always present, it is strong, stronger than often thought of as a matter of fact, without the adequate language competences a student cannot really follow what is being taught, cannot acquire subject knowledge in a substantial way nor communicate about it, he or she will at best become a parrot and will eventually fail.
5. Language in subject-specific contexts is not limited to learning new concepts through new labels/words or a whole new system of terminology which reflects the knowledge structures of a particular subject. It goes far beyond that it requires new ways of thinking within the framework of one particular subject or a group of subjects (domain) and their specific approaches to reality or world views; it also requires new ways of communicating, of understanding and producing a variety of text types or genres, of engaging into specialised forms of discourse which follow certain traditions, conventions and expectations.
6. In a way, learning a new subject is almost like learning a new language, except that we are using the same code and build on experience and competencies already developed through LS to some extent, maybe even to a large extent, either parallel or in the years of education before (early childhood, pre-school and primary education). This basis of already existing communicative competences is now extended, revised and reorganised for use in more complex cognitive learning contexts, for potentially more scientific goals, for more abstract tasks and academic purposes. In a way we can talk about some form of an unfolding plurilingualism, one that adds to the existing varieties and discourse repertoires of one and the same language (mother tongue/language of schooling). In another context (Vollmer 2006) I have qualified this development as a first type of or as inner plurilingualism (as opposed to the acquisition of foreign languages which will lead to another (exterior) type of plurilingualism). Both are linked and interact, of course!
7. Many features of classroom scientific or academic language use in subject-specific contexts (as much as in LS) have been identified and are already known. In comparison to everyday language and the exchange about less specific, less complex topics of a more interpersonal nature, the rhetorical structures, grammatical metaphors (Halliday) and ways of expression required in the formal context of schooling and beyond, actually life-long, can be characterised as follows (see SLIDE):
- The language is more specific, it is embedded into semantic fields and networks of concepts
- It uses a more formal register and style (e.g. reduce instead of becoming less)
- It is more abstract or generalised in word choice: verbs, adverbs collocations (acurve increases sharply instead of goes up strongly
)
- It is more precise and succinct (e.g. precipitation instead of rain)
- It is more explicit and detailed (from January till March the sales figures rise, whereas from April until September they stay even at a high level)
- It is more cohesive (explicitly linking ideas, sentences and parts thereof)
- It is more rationally structured (concerning the logic of sequencing, arguing, evidencing)
- It is more coherent or goal-oriented in terms of the overall structuring of a discourse or text;
- It thus requires more planning, self-monitoring and other forms of user control (e.g. internal feedback)
- It leads to basic forms of classroom-scientific discourse to which all learners are entitled and which are fundamental prerequisites in order to learn efficiently, in order to survive school and in order to become a social agent and participate inside and outside of school as a democratic citizen.
8. Not all discourse in the subject areas in school nor in LS is scientifically oriented and based on what Jim Cummins (1978) has called Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). A good part of it continues to be everyday classroom discourse, necessary for managing the transactions of learning and the interactions between teachers and students. So we will also find many elements of normal interpersonal communication in subject classes for which Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) are sufficient - alongside with forms of academic language use.
9. The language activities within subject learning in school relate to processing a large number of verbal texts, but also many non-verbal sources of information and representations and often texts with mixed modes or multi-modalities. In addition, there is a need for constant translation from one symbolic system into the other as much as from everyday language into pre-scientific language use and vice versa. Therefore, we should rather speak of communicative or even better of semiotic requirements and not just of linguistic ones. This is true, for example, in history (including communication about historical monuments or political cartoons), in the sciences (including the use of graphs, cross-sectional diagrams or electronic imagery/modelling) or in mathematics (with its system of abstract symbols and their dynamic interaction with everyday situations and meanings).
10. It is the nature of communication that it is used for something, for a purpose, for communicating content or insight(s), for transporting meaning or a message. Communication is a tool for comprehending and expressing such meaning, which is constructed by the students themselves. It is also a tool for interaction with others, for bringing ones own perceptions or findings across to others, for influencing or convincing others (e.g. by way of argumentation) etc. Generally speaking, subject-based communication is driven by content, by purpose, by wanting to reach a specific addressee or audience and last, but not least by the rules and conventions of the type of talk, text or genre produced. The term genre is not restricted to written texts, but includes all types of oral communication in subject-specific contexts as well as all types of interactive and reflexive discourse as well (including metacommunication).
11. So the communicative dimension in subject learning is absolutely central for acquiring the knowledge structures of a subject, the concepts and how they network, the models behind them and the ways they have been developed over time as a dynamic, sometimes controversial process. But it is also central for understanding the big issues of a subject or domain and their impact on ones personal life and that of society as a whole. The language to accompany these cognitive processes and carry out these mental, sometimes even physical activities (like setting up an experiment or reconstructing it) allows us to name them, to understand them, to interconnect them, to exchange about them. Communication is equally important for reflecting about a subject, its approaches and limitations, its unsettled issues, its relevance and applications (in terms of use and misuse) in different technical, social or political contexts.
12. Discourse competences in LAC do not develop all by themselves. They have to be specifically identified, named and focused upon through conscious didactic effort and support measures (in close connection with subject teaching, however!). Learners have to be specifically initiated into academic language use and the new discourse types and varieties, and they need many opportunities to practice them (with all kinds of self-repair, re-writing exercises and room for editing their utterances or products). Once they have been given a rational knowledge base about these expectations and once they have developed the basic rhetorical skills and forms of expression to go along with it, they will be able to follow the subject-specific teaching with more understanding and success. It is this kind of security that every learner is entitled to. Otherwise, many of the communicative deficiencies will not be overcome which we identified in our own research (Vollmer 2007, 2008).
13. This is where the LINK comes in to the communicative competences already acquired through LS. The relationship between discourse competences in LS and discourse competences in LAC might be one of expanding the message-orientation in learning, of expanding the thematic patterns, but above all the rhetorical skills and structures needed for relevant, authentic subject-based discourse. On the other hand, LS itself, as it progresses, includes forms of literary analysis and appreciation which can be considered as equally subject-specific as any topic or approach in a non-linguistic subject. In that sense, the borderlines between the communicative demands of LS and LAC may shrink and may prove to be only analytically valid. Certainly in the minds of the learners are they whole, indivisible!
14. In summing up, we can say that the main didactic uses of communication in LAC are fourfold: we need it for talking subject, for learning and (re-)constructing subject, for talking about a subject, and for social uses/participating in a subject, that applying what we have learned in or from a subject (e.g. being able to follow and master the socio-scientific issues like gene manipulation or radiation in our life, our profession and in society as a whole ). As we have said earlier, LAC means to acquire new and appropriate discourse varieties within each subject or within a domain (as long as several subjects are similar in structure and social or cognitive perspective like in the natural sciences striving for scientific literacy), but also across subjects and domains. In order to describe these possible links and make them happen for the learner, we need exactly a larger framework and a systematic approach for categorising communication. This is under way.
15. Without successfully learning the classroom-based academic language games, so to speak, which are so characteristic, yet so hidden an agenda in schools, any student will be deprived from developing adequate knowledge, from becoming competent users of subject-specific communication, from participating into the knowledge society and from becoming democratic citizens who critically engage their knowledge in private, professional and social contexts. Some students (especially the ones with a supportive family background) acquire the most importantly needed communicative competencies anyhow (without having been taught them necessarily), others do NOT. And without sufficient communicative competences in LAC any student would be disadvantaged, left behind or even left out in the long run.
In the following, we will look at some aspects of LAC more closely by presenting examples and also by raising some questions which can be challenged or actively supported by you, either now or further down along the road during this conference. We will demonstrate how the necessary communication or discourse competencies could be described, as a matter of fact, have already been partly described in some curricula. We will try to illustrate how language and communication are part of subject learning or even at the heart of subject competence itself.
We will start with reflections and examples from mathematics, followed by others from history and from the sciences. We will ask: What exactly is it that we want our student to be able to DO communication-wise in science education, in history education and in maths education at the end of compulsory schooling? And how can we best observe whether our teaching is successful?
In a second step we will then talk about the LINK between language activities and communicative competences needed and acquired in LS and those needed and required for LAC. Are they the same, and if not, in which way do they differ? Can some or many of them be transferred from one area to the other, at least in part? Does that really happen or could we make it happen (e.g. with the help of a common framework of reference? Finally, what does LS provide as a reliable basis and how do the subject areas contribute their necessary share in the continuation of these processes and outcomes towards language education as a whole?
Session V. The Challenge of Assessment
Second group work session
The theme of assessment was introduced by group work which then led to the plenary presentations. Participants in groups were presented with five different assessment tasks designed for pupils at the end of primary and at the end of compulsory schooling for analysis; three of these tasks were from language as subject national tests and two from geography. In general the tasks were not thought to have been well-conceived or well-designed. Given that these were authentic tasks drawn from national tests, the results of the group discussion and the criticisms of some of the tasks particularly those for language as subject illustrated the challenge involved in developing assessments that are clear and unambiguous but also engaging for pupils.
The criticisms (which manly focused on the language as subject tasks) are presented here in summary form: the language of the tasks was fairly academic presenting possible reading difficulties for some pupils; the tasks were vague giving insufficient explanation of what was expected from students; the required writing was artificial without engaging the learners in any real sense of purpose; the lack of criteria for assessment accompanying the tasks meant there was a lack of transparency; the assessments focused on product and gathered no data on process, on reflection, on approaching the task, on the preparation needed; genre expectations were not made explicit in one task a report was required but no further information was given; the language expectations were not made explicit.
Groups also shared details of the approach to national tests in the different countries. The group rapporteurs provided details of these country by country which will be helpful to the working group when advancing to the next stage of the project. Here a broad summary is given. Most countries have national tests of some kind but these vary with regard to the frequency with which they are held and the target age groups. There is an increasing tendency for the adoption of national tests of some kind and in some countries increased use of testing of pupils at an early age. In many countries oral skills are not tested and it was felt that the writing requirements are not always adequate. In some contexts reading ability is assessed through multiple choice tests. Given the degree to which testing influences the curriculum and the dangers of teaching to the test the need to have forms of assessment which are of high quality was emphasised. There was some discussion of the use made of tests in comparing schools and recognition of some of the dangers of this. A European framework document could help with teaching and assessment provision by providing specific examples of approaches to testing.
It was recognised that assessment is a sensitive issue. However, given its importance, it was felt that a European framework document should have a role to play in at least prompting countries to reflect critically on their own policies and practice. To that end examples of descriptors might be helpful. They might for example help members audit their own practices to ensure that assessment practices are grounded in a strong rationale and an awareness of other possibilities. There would be a role for a framework document in providing guidance for the design of quality assessment tasks, including explication of the types of knowledge involved, genres demanded and their discursive functions.
Waldemar Martyniuk presented an overview of the work undertaken by the assessment group as detailed in the preliminary study. He outlined common problems with assessment and the reasons why these tend to arise as well as providing an overview of the wide-ranging, and sometimes conflicting, purposes of assessment. The challenge for the national assessment scheme is to integrate the different purposes. An ideal assessment system would reflect the full complexity of language as school subject (LS), and would motivate learners by giving useful feedback, while also providing other stake-holders (e.g. policy-makers, employers and teachers) with the information they need.
Ellen Krogh in her presentation on Portfolio Evaluation a Medium for Learning described different approaches to constructing a language as subject portfolio. The substantial research which supports the view that formative assessment improves learning presents a convincing case for considering this approach. She emphasised the role of a portfolio in promoting self-evaluation, substantive conversation, reflective thinking and practice.
Closing
The conference closed with a perspective on the languages of education vision and a reiteration of the importance of values. Daniel Coste provided an over view of some of the key perspectives in formulating a framework. He re-emphasised the importance of a concept of plurilingualism not just as an adjunct but as a way of opening up think about language as subject itself. The full text is given at the end of this closing session.
The plenary discussion accepted the key role for a framework document in helping countries support all disadvantaged groups in society. It was suggested that the work might go beyond analysis of curricula and take into account the views of young people themselves. The need for a framework document that is flexible and dynamic was re-emphasised; it was suggested that the metaphor of a mosaic was more appropriate for describing the way its content might be represented than a conventional linear text. The process should involve more than the production of a single text as product but should aim at developing a community of practice.
Johanna Panthier concluded by thanking the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic for their hospitality in hosting the conference and in particular Irena Maskovà and her team who did so much work to ensure its efficient organisation. She also thanked the working group and the conference delegates for making the occasion such a success and the many individuals who helped to organise and support the event.
Languages of education and languages of schooling:
prospects for a reference framework
Daniel Coste
This paper is directly linked to the work of a small group composed of Marisa Cavalli, Alexandru Crisan and Piet-Hein van de Ven. It incorporates ideas that emerged from discussions at a meeting in Prague in November 2007 and also draws on preliminary work for this meeting.
0. Introduction
0. 1. Terminology
The meeting was concerned with the language or languages of schooling as subjects in their own right and vehicles for teaching other subjects. However, as Piet-Hein van de Ven and others have continued to point out, this central component of school language practice has to be seen in the more general context of languages of education and a whole range of goals in which, for the Council of Europe in particular, recognition of, respect for and the enhancement and development of individual plurilingualism have an important part to play.
It is our fundamental tenet that in our multilingual and multicultural societies, exposed to globalisation and often tempted to withdraw into narrow forms of nationalism, or even communitarianism, far from being a plaything for international institutions plurilingual education is a human right, a resource for the future, and even one of the conditions for collective survival. This is why we need to pay close attention to the languages of education and their relationship to the major language, or languages, of schooling.
First of all we need to recognise that education is a multiple phenomenon that goes well beyond the school, even though the latter has a key role, as well as institutional responsibility, in this area. This plurality is also evident in language practices. Young children, and not just those with migrant or disadvantaged backgrounds, are in contact with various sources of socialisation and education whose respective influences are not always convergent and with linguistic diversity, whether this be languages or varieties of language, communication situations, forms of discourse or genres. It is no exaggeration to say that every child that arrives in school has already experienced multilingualism and a range of language practices, and the social norms that govern this variation. In many respects, he or she has also already developed multiple linguistic competences, even though this is generally unrecognised as such and is far from being acknowledged by the education system.
This is why schools need to identify clearly the languages of school education and all the other languages and linguistic varieties present in the school, either because they form part of the establishment's official curriculum, as languages of schooling, foreign languages or in some cases minority or regional languages, or because they are part of the pupils' repertoires. This means that at different moments, any language or variety of a pupil's repertoire may be given official status in the classroom and become one of the resources used by the teacher when working with all or a group of the pupils.
0.2. Plan
This paper sets out to:
show that tensions may exist between the very values and goals enshrined in the school system and, more specifically from our point of view, between the languages of schooling and other languages of education;
consider what relationships may be established within the curriculum between languages of schooling and of education and school subjects, with the ultimate aim of drawing up a European reference framework for languages of education;
make proposals for an allocation of responsibilities within the European setting.
1. Educational goals, language of schooling and plurilingualism
1.1. Five goals
It can be argued that all education systems have five goals:
ensuring that all their pupils achieve a sufficient level of success at school, for the sake of their futures;
helping to establish each pupil's identity and transmitting and developing a series of shared references;
contributing to the development of a knowledge-based and innovative society;
preparing pupils to exercise democratic citizenship;
securing social inclusion and cohesion.
Even though these goals represent values and are partly interdependent, they are not necessarily mutually consistent and compatible in every context. Any education policy must, whether or not explicitly, balance its priorities and give each more or less weight than the others. The choices that are made determine the curriculum content and objectives, in which the knowledge, capacities, skills, know-how and attitudes sought are specified with varying degrees of precision.
1.2. Language of schooling and educational goals
Language is a basic component of any form of schooling, whether as objective or tool of learning. Schools also play a major part in organising, selecting and prioritising the languages and language varieties present in schools and, indirectly, those that are excluded.
The language of schooling is both a subject in and a transversal element of the curriculum. It has three key features:
For most pupils, it is the first formal introduction to written language, over and above any initial literacy experience in the family or other contexts. Reading and writing are major components of early education and primary schools are almost identified with introducing pupils to this second form of linguistic symbolism. This focus on the written form reinforces the central role of the major language in the education system. Moreover, the near monopoly exercised by written language means that the language of schooling is the main, if not the sole, medium through which subject knowledge is acquired.
Since the written form of that language has been largely standardised it is presented not just as the shared language, that of the school community in its day-to-day functioning, but also as a single and unified whole, irrespective of the variations it may display, including its different uses within the school. Thanks largely to the school and to its written form, that language achieves a form of objective, and even sacred, status as part of a system that is deemed to be unifying and homogeneous, and is seen to be a key element of collective belonging.
The combination of the last two features the role of written language and the representation of the language of schooling as a single, unified whole often endows the latter and its use with a normative status whose effect is to give pupils from disadvantaged or immigrant backgrounds a sense of linguistic insecurity, with occasionally stimulating but much more frequently paralysing consequences. While seen as a factor for integration, the so-called common language may contribute to the exclusion of those whose command of it is incomplete.
In theory, the five goals identified above have always been part of schools' missions in modern democratic nation states. Most of them have also accepted the premise that achieving these goals is largely dependent on a good command of the shared and unifying language, and that this is a precondition of individual success, the formation and development of individual and shared identities, the transmission and construction of knowledge, democratic citizenship, social inclusion and peaceful co-existence.
Conversely, a multiplicity of languages or language varieties has often been seen in the past as likely to restrict schools' ability to attain their objectives, particularly in the first years of schooling.
Now, however, the situation is more complex, as a result of several powerful trends:
awareness of pupils' varied origins;
recognition of the linguistic rights of speakers of regional, minority or immigrant languages;
encouragement of individual plurilingualism and recognition of plurilingual and multi/intercultural education's potential for preparing pupils for the world-wide circulation of information, persons and goods, both material and cultural, and its key contribution to the proper functioning and development of our increasingly multilingual societies.
The result is a new approach, as exemplified in the Council of Europe's language policy instruments and in particular Beacco and Byram's Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe, that emphasises school objectives and linguistic education that are more consistent with a plurality of languages. It is argued that:
by using several languages, the process of accessing information and accumulating knowledge becomes more complex, more reliable and even more creative;
social cohesion calls for greater awareness and appreciation of language diversity in the community;
bearing in mind current levels of individual and collective mobility, the exercise of citizenship in multicultural societies can only benefit from the plurilingualism of those active in the community;
individual and collective identities can only become and remain established through recognition of others and interaction with them. Modern identities are multifaceted and are defined in terms of their relationships to others, hence once more the importance of plurilingualism.
These arguments are based on a realistic definition of plurilingual competence. The plurilingualism sought is that not of an exceptional polyglot but rather of ordinary individuals with a varied linguistic capital in which partial competences have their place. What is wanted is not maximum proficiency but a range of language skills and receptiveness to cultural diversity.
But in addition to those areas where there might be agreement, there is a widely held acceptance of the first goal, concerning everyone's right to success at school and thus the duty of every education system to ensure that this is achieved, or at least to create the most favourable conditions for such success. This amounts to a belief that what is most important is a good functional, and reflexive, command of the main language of schooling, particularly in the case of children from disadvantaged or immigrant backgrounds. This belief is shared by the great majority of teachers and the majority of parents concerned.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that when children and young persons drop out of school or are forced to repeat it is their inadequate command of the language of schooling that is blamed. At the same time the school is criticised for its inadequacies and failure to live up to its requirements, because it allows or fails to rectify linguistic faults attributable to language practices that have no part in school life, because they are sloppy or incorrect ... or foreign.
The normal recommended response in these circumstances is a return to basics. This means basic handwriting, spelling, vocabulary and grammar, systematic reading exercises and sentence construction. The focus is on how the system operates and the rules of the language, at the expense of spontaneous personal expression, and minimum acceptance of other languages and language varieties.
The result is an education environment that is often characterised by tension and ambiguities and where the treatment of the language of schooling, particularly as an independent subject, is the subject of often lively debate.
1.3. A fundamental option
These tensions and controversies cannot be readily characterised in terms of a confrontation between old and new, between conservatives and progressives. The situation varies according to circumstances and always reflects fundamental and complex issues. What we can say is that:
in so far as it plays a key part in school achievement and the social environment, command of the language of schooling makes a major contribution to any school's objectives. As such, it cannot be ignored;
equally clearly, modern schools have to acknowledge and accept a plurality of languages and cultures, less perhaps for practical operational reasons than in response to more general goals relating to the future of society;
if these two requirements are to be taken into account, this must not be on the basis of a compromise or some form of geographical division. The challenge is to ensure that languages spoken at school other than and alongside the language of schooling benefit the latter while at the same time the way the latter is used and developed also contributes to acceptance of pluralism. In other words, an integrative approach, but one where each subject and component of the school curriculum retains its specific identifying features.
Depending on circumstances, this integration may take different forms, reflect various scenarios and differ in its degree of application. Once again, a maximalist approach is to be avoided. The smallest change of course is often enough to lead to much greater changes.
From the languages of education standpoint, what can unite us is clearly the why and the how of this process of integration, where fusion is not the aim and confusion must be avoided. Our starting position is one that our gathering only served to confirm and that I would summarise, albeit at the risk of simplification, as follows: all languages of schooling are multiple in form and there is no single common language. Or even more provocatively, it is possible to be plurilingual within and on the basis of just one language.
Any consideration of the language of schooling within the context of a European framework for languages of education might therefore start by "decanonising" and revitalising current representations of this central component of our school system, by bringing out the rules that govern the diversity of its uses, first and foremost in an education context.
This diversity and these rules are not new, nor unique to each subject. History obviously includes lexical elements, genres and language functions that differ from those of the natural sciences, but it also includes similar elements, if only because it forms part of a common curriculum that requires at least some shared forms of communication. Much of the diversity and the rules governing language are transversal, with respect to both the curriculum and the uses of languages of schooling in the current state of European education systems. I will return to this later.
However it is worth making a point that was probably anything but obvious before the launch of the languages of education project, namely that the success of plurilingual education and its introduction into the curriculum is largely dependent on how we present, represent, use, teach, develop and discuss the language of schooling. The very existence of schools makes the language of schooling in certain respects the centre of gravity and the key component of plurilingual education.
Hence the possibility of avoiding the tensions referred to earlier between the main school language and plurilingual education. If it is "decanonised" and decompartmentalised, the language of schooling can become the keystone of plurilingual education. At the same time, though, there is no possibility of such plurilingual education establishing itself in education systems unless it is also seen to benefit the language of schooling.
In many respects, such a recasting of the relationship between the two depends on close consideration of the language of schooling as a cross-curriculum language and a fresh examination of the language as a subject in its own right. This is our next task.
2. The relationship between the language of schooling and other subjects in the context of languages of education
The notion of a reference framework for languages of education raises issues pertaining to the relationship between plurality and transversality.
2.1. Observing the discourses and genres of school subjects
The language of schooling is often misleadingly represented by schools as a single unified and homogeneous language, but, as we have discovered in our discussions, observation of what happens in practice, particularly the way subjects are taught in this language, reveals a much more complex scenario, which can be characterised as controlled diversity. The way each subject is taught adds new components to pupils' repertoires not just lexical elements associated with the introduction of new concepts but also genres and textual genres that may or may not be specific to the subject concerned. This plurality obeys clearly defined language rules that have to be identified and learnt in order to make progress in that subject. Developing knowledge in a subject is, mutatis mutandis, as Helmut Vollmer has remarked, the equivalent of learning a new language by developing new forms of discourse and modes of formulation.
The acquisition of knowledge and skills that follows from the teaching of a school subject therefore also adds to the pupils' language repertoire. Without that enrichment, there will be no expansion of knowledge. Hence the importance of paying more attention than normal to the uses of the language of schooling in the teaching practices and material associated with what are incorrectly known as "non-linguistic" subjects. What makes this even more necessary is that for the majority of teachers and pupils the emphasis on a shared language creates an assumption that the teacher's discourse, except the specialist vocabulary, is fully transparent. This incorrect assumption is often detrimental to the acquisition of knowledge in the science disciplines.
Once it is recognised that discovering a new field of knowledge entails not only the assimilation of new concepts and new relationships between them but also familiarity with new forms and rules of discourse, three consequences and a question emerge.
First, the consequences:
these new forms and rules must be learnt and mastered, alongside the acquisition of the knowledge under consideration, through observation, practice and discussion;
however, this language acquisition process both benefits the subject concerned and helps to diversify the means of expression of the language of schooling, which becomes a focus of variety;
the cumulative effect of the subjects is the increase of the number of textual styles and rules confronting pupils. It is therefore not unreasonable to argue that if learning a subject includes active attention to its associated and implied linguistic aspects it is also contributing to plurilingual education.
The inevitable question concerns the additional costs, in terms of school time and how these costs are allocated, arising from a more systematic and explicit focus on the linguistic aspects of each subject than is generally the case in school curricula.
Here, we must consider the question not just of plurality but also of the various aspects of transversality, which are essential for the organisation of a plurilingual curriculum and to the relationships between language of schooling, other languages and school subjects.
2.2. Diversity and transversality
In the context of a European framework for languages of education, in which the main language of schooling plays a central role, taking diversity, or a controlled multiplicity, of language forms as the starting point raises certain key issues relating to transversality. These need to be considered at three levels:
specific establishments, or schools, with varying degrees of autonomy;
the central co-ordinating or decision-making body for the education system, whether regional or national;
international co-operation and networks, for example at the European level.
With reference to the five goals considered earlier, we should also try to identify the contact areas between language, the curriculum and learning that are more or less transversal.
The following list suggests a gradation, from the more general to the more specific, starting not with the most important but with the most obvious, which we have also noted in discussions is often passed over in silence.
Transversality of semiotic representations
Modes of representation that are not strictly linguistic have a transversal semiotic scope. Cross tabulations, pi-charts showing percentages, organisation charts, praxeograms and maps are among the presentational and representational tools used by different subjects, each of which has similar rules of comprehension, irrespective of subject. These modes of representation are certainly not presented as subjects of study in themselves, even if they are in ordinary, everyday use in the transmission and development of subject knowledge, as well as in newspapers and other forms of written material that citizens come across and on occasions use themselves. Many adults have difficulties with these semiotic forms because they have never mastered their use. To summarise, depending on our mastery of them, these tools that are common to different subjects and languages are closely bound up with the knowledge society, citizen participation and the level of social cohesion or fracture. Schools must teach understanding of them and this concerns both scientific and other disciplines.
Transversality of verbalisations based on semiotic representations
These modes of representation also have a direct impact on languages and their command, because their interpretation and description require ways of expressing whose structure and application in discourse are subject to general constraints and are widely shared, leading to a further level of transversality. This constitutes an area of language functioning that is linked to the language of schooling, both as a language of instruction and as a subject in its own right. From the standpoint of curriculum integration and the relationship between disciplines, it has to be asked whether the language as a subject should grant specific attention to these semiotic modes. Such an investment would be highly beneficial for the language, both as a subject itself and as a medium for teaching other subjects. Moreover, these tools of representation are not neutral. One semiotic instrument does not have the same reading effects as another. Developing a critical and questioning approach to the objectivity of a particular semiotic option and the reasons for choosing it should be one aspect of such instruction and is one of the components of any Bildung.
Transversality of conceptual design of subjects
Another form (or several forms) of transversality may be identified in connection with subjects and languages. Irrespective of language, specific subjects display similar or identical conceptual designs and networks, analytical approaches, demonstration and reasoning methods and oral and written genres that depend not on the language as such, but on the particular area of knowledge. This applies above all to mathematics and the natural sciences. But in contrast to what might previously have been the case, the human and social sciences, such as economics, geography and even history, are now tending across Europe to adopt and apply similar conceptual models and analytical schemas. Admittedly, notions such as "liberalism" or "nation" do not have the same connotations in every curriculum and do not form part of the same linguistic collocations in every language, but the conceptual structure of their respective domains hardly varies from one system to another.
Ethical options, concepts of learning and didactic choices
Consideration should be given to the impact on language of ethical options, concepts of learning and/or approaches that are specific to one particular discipline or derived from educational choices at a particular moment. Several points may be made here:
with regard to ideological or ethical values and choices, the stress on participation and democratic citizenship sits most comfortably with educational practices that allow pupils to express themselves and encourage initiatives, group work, negotiation, debate, openness to others and the search for compromise. This is reflected in language practices that, particularly at the oral level and irrespective of subject, offer certain transversal characteristics in terms of genres and repertoires of discourse sought;
it goes without saying that concepts of learning refer not to passing fads but to models from which conclusions can be drawn. Strictly behaviourist approaches do not lead to the same teaching methods as a socio-constructivist perspective, which itself can be distinguished from a firmly cognitivist orientation regarding the activities offered to pupils. It is not unusual over a particular period of time for one dominant concept of learning to become established within an education system, or even over a wider geographical area, and to serve as inspiration for the majority of subjects;
in so far as they can be distinguished from the conceptual structure of the subject matter concerned, the approaches that typify the teaching of particular subjects, based on what it sets out to achieve, its theoretical model or even as just seen a certain concept of learning, are also likely to transcend individual languages and frontiers. For example, they may be based on laboratory experiments or on problems calling for rigorously regulated analysis and conclusions. Here again, genres and repertoires of discourse may take similar forms, once certain distinctive features of particular languages are set aside.
Ordinary school functioning
Other aspects of transversality relate to materials, resources and teaching practices themselves, including teachers' discourses, different forms of classroom interaction, textbooks, and on-line Internet resources. There are clear signs of transversality in these various aspects of ordinary school activity. Admittedly, they are seldom mentioned in curricula themselves but there is no shortage of research on interactions, teachers discourses and small group work that highlights the transversalities at various levels.
So to summarise, there is a high level of transversality across subjects and education systems with regard to non-strictly linguistic instruments of semiotic representation. There is relatively high transversality across languages and education systems concerning the specific concepts and approaches associated with individual academic subjects. There is a possibility of transversality with regard to the effect on language of ethical choices and concepts of learning. Finally, transversality is associated with numerous everyday aspects of school activity. As we have noted, the organisation of curricula can be considered at three different levels, individual schools, national curricula and efforts to establish a European reference framework in which, rather than competing with the other languages of education, the languages of schooling draw on them, to their own benefit. As a number of examples have demonstrated, this overall approach can contribute to the general goals of modern education systems, namely establishing knowledge and preparing for citizenship, social cohesion and the development and affirmation of identities.
It is essential to bear in mind two complementary phenomena: firstly the linguistic plurality of each subject in terms of how it uses the language of schooling, and secondly the transversalities that emerge from descriptions of the language functioning of particular subjects, which show that linguistic and semiotic resources are structured and organised in noticeably similar fashion. The term "noticeably similar" is of considerable significance here.
3. Organising the curriculum and languages of plurilingual education
3.1. Introduction
In highlighting plurality and transversalities, even if partial, we consider that:
the difficulties experienced by many pupils result from the fact that this plurality is ignored in the case of the language of schooling and has to be brought back into the open, described and exploited as a subject of study;
taking account of this plurality is fully consistent with a plurilingual education, including both the language of schooling and the other languages and language varieties present in the school;
the general organisation of a curriculum is also based on the didactic exploitation of transversalities and a certain sharing of tasks between different subjects linguistic and "non-linguistic" of the curriculum.
Clearly, this is the approach adopted in the studies carried out by various groups based on the science, mathematics, history and primary education curricula of various countries, from which a number of initial findings emerge:
the language implications of the knowledge and skills sought in the curricula of subjects other than language ones are rarely specified, but they could often be rewritten in these terms;
the descriptors used for the skills to be developed in the subject concerned often range from the excessively general ("analyse", "classify" "observe") to the excessively detailed (if it is intended to identify possible transversalities);
but it has also become clear that in describing the "be capable of" aspects of subjects, use can be made of the communication activities descriptors used in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which throw up useful aspects of transversality relating to languages of education as a whole, thus raising questions about the definition of standards relating to the same types of reference;
and even more than in the case of the CEFR, what emerges from various studies is the importance of genres, suggesting that this is one of the areas where transversality is likely to have a particular impact in terms of language implications and the general organisation of the learning process.
3.2. Complex functions of the language of schooling as an academic subject
The language of schooling as a subject often appears to be least compatible with transversality, even though it can also act as a support for other disciplines. In addition to the major goals specified above, in most education systems it fulfils three functions, namely development of communication skills, culture transmission and identity shaping, and the provision of tools for studying and analysing language and its use. Depending on national traditions, the third function does not always receive the same recognition and is not always linked to the development of communication skills.
The most transversal function is, of course, that of fostering communication skills, since it is the one that has the most bearing on other subjects. Here, the potential for osmosis is extremely plausible but less established in practice.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, and what Laila Aase has shown us, there are a number of major questions concerning the language as a discipline:
to what extent does it entail a range of linguistic genres?
to what extent should the school offer preparation for social genres that are external to the school?
to what extent do the genres covered resemble ones used in studying other school subjects?
to what extent do they remain specific to the language as a subject in its own right?
These questions are associated with a choice between two often opposing views on the language of schooling as a subject, namely whether it should:
seek functional proximity to social communication needs, such as preparing a curriculum vitae or learning to critically appraise a television news programme or an advertising campaign, or
maintain a distance from ordinary social uses and abide by the principle that the school's role is to insulate pupils from everyday communication and introduce them to forms of reading material and uses of and approaches to the language other than those they experience in the out-of-school setting.
Naturally, the two positions need not be polarised to the extent that they become mutually exclusive. There are gradations between the two, depending on the point of the syllabus reached or the particular stream, but tensions remain, above all in connection with pupils' social and cultural origins. The place of literature and how much importance is ascribed to it, and the literary forms studied, as reading material and sometimes for written purposes, are indicators of the relative weighting given to each and of what tensions exist. The existing landscape is very varied, not only from country to country but also between different streams.
The importance ascribed to the function of analysis of language forms and uses varies according to context and also gives rise to different stances and sometimes controversy on such issues as sentence grammar, textual grammar, discourse analysis, whether to focus on a single standard for correction or highlight the arbitrary nature of such standards and the need for different norms, and so on. The position adopted may well have a bearing on whether links can be established between the language of schooling as a subject and language across the curriculum. It also affects the relationships between the language of schooling, foreign languages taught and pupils' repertoires. How language in general and the specific language are analysed and the categories and models on which such analysis draws will help determine how far learners (and teachers) can identify similarities and differences between the ways in which language operates.
This topic goes well beyond the planned scope and duration of this presentation but it should be pointed out that one of the fundamental issues relating to the language of schooling as a subject concerns the relative weighting to be given to the various functions identified and how much attention each should receive at different points in the syllabus. Decisions taken at primary level on how to introduce pupils to writing and develop their skills in reading and understanding written material, and the approach adopted to language standards and variation, are often critical for the remainder of their studies.
3.3. The close link between languages as distinct subjects and as languages across the curriculum
The presentations at this meeting, based on the comparative analyses of national curricula that followed the Oslo gathering, have shown what a fertile field this is. Examinations of the relationship between languages as subjects and as cross-curriculum languages highlight the diversity, and even the heterogeneity, of languages of schooling, which become multiple and composite rather than unified and homogeneous.
However, two caveats are in order, albeit of differing importance:
care must be taken not to place too much weight on the terminology used, notwithstanding its usefulness. Language across the curriculum and langue denseignement must not simply become newly-minted but essential and immutable terms. In fact, as in the case of Bildung Sprache or Academic Language, these terms cover extremely varied language forms and practices. It would be wrong to give them too general a scope. The same applies to the otherwise valuable distinction made by Cummins between BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency), which resembles a little too closely Bernstein's restricted and elaborated speech codes. Often, the day-to-day practice of school subjects takes the form of a toing and froing between communicative skills and the various forms of cognitive academic language.
Conversely, given the wealth of characterisations and descriptors to which close analysis of the linguistic dimensions of various curricula can give rise, care should also be taken to ensure that emphasis on the variety of uses of the language of schooling does not lead to exaggerated expectations regarding language skills, and to standards and thresholds whose definitions are so detailed and precise that their effect on learners and teachers is more constraining and more damaging than broad generalisations or failure to acknowledge such plurality.
This serves to reinforce the idea that in order to identify units of transversal analysis from which certain general operating principles concerning the linguistic dimensions of curricula can be deduced, the starting point should be some intermediate level, such as genres or forms of communication.
3.4. Five components of a dynamic model
Paradoxically, in order to strike a balance between excessively homogeneous and excessively fragmented approaches to the language of schooling when drawing up a frame of reference a more complex analysis may be required. Once again, the starting point is cross-curriculum language.
As noted in the other contributions, curriculum development that seeks to establish a relationship between the language of schooling and the language of other subjects raises questions of contact and cross circulation. But nor is this a simple binary relationship. Three other areas of language practice must be taken into account:
The first concerns pupils' language repertoires. These multiple, and possibly plurilingual, discursive repertoires will come into contact with varieties of the language of schooling throughout pupils' school careers and will one hopes at least draw on them and restructure and become more complex as a result.
The second area is that of social genres, discursive practices and forms of textual presentation in the social environment, such as the media and civil society, for whose active and responsible use schools offer preparation through the language of schooling and its associated subject competences and cultures. We have already discussed this in connection with science, history and mathematics.
The third area concerns the foreign language or languages taught by schools, which may also and increasingly be present and accessible in the environment. This part of the curriculum is not the main focus of our meeting but it is worth noting that it is for these languages that transversal instruments and general models such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and the European Language Portfolio have been drawn up, and foreign languages have been the focus and starting point for investigations of didactic convergence, between these languages and the language of schooling as a subject (integrated language learning), neighbouring languages (intercomprehension) or languages and what are incorrectly called non-linguistic subjects, (bi/plurilingual teaching).
The key issue with regard to the organisation of plurilingual education is to decide how and to what extent these five areas come into contact and overlap with each other in the school setting. Clearly, such interactions are possible and desirable:
between the language as a subject itself and as a medium for teaching other subjects;
between each of the former and various social uses of language;
between foreign languages, other subjects and social uses.
In the context of languages of education, though, the first learners' language repertoire is the most important. Particularly if the curriculum is defined as an individual's experiential learning trajectory, the major language objective is to ensure that pupils' repertoires offer them, in line with general educational goals, an ever-greater command of the discourses, genres and texts used in the other areas identified. Depending on circumstances, the initial "coverage" may vary. Thus, certain pupils may have skills in one or more languages other than that of schooling, and be familiar with certain social genres and usages outside the school environment as well as with one or other variety of educational discourse. The task of the school, however, and that of the pupil, is to secure a gradual extension of this initial repertoire within the different areas identified here. Establishing bridges between their first repertoire and the other areas pupils are required to master and acknowledging the transversalities between these other areas can only assist this process.
Concluding comments
In the process just outlined and for the majority of education systems, the language of schooling as a subject occupies a central and probably decisive position. As we have seen, it has made, and will continue to make, a major contribution to achieving the various goals of education systems. Within schools, the language of schooling determines the models, norms and representations of the shared language. De facto, it shapes the key interactions between the various language varieties present in the school. For example, it may or may not open to these varieties as means of instruction of other subjects or authorise "extra-scholastic" language practices. Naturally, the other subjects also have a say in the role and use of languages in their own disciplines. In the last resort, though, and in most education systems, because it occupies a key place and has its own agenda to respect, particularly regarding the transmission of a literary cultural capital, whether or not "canonic", it is the language of schooling that determines the centre of gravity and the general balance of the system, depending on which options are taken. It may also be the most exposed to the tensions and crises which school systems are experiencing in the period of necessary transition through which Europe is currently passing.
Hardly surprising then that in these circumstances, the curriculum choices, educational practices and assessment methods adopted at primary level are often critical for the educational futures of the children they admit, particularly for those and the two must not be confused from socially and economically disadvantaged or from recent immigrant backgrounds.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Conference programme
Wednesday 7 November 200714.00
17.00
18.00
18.00 19.00
19.00 -21.00Planning meeting (co-ordination team)
Briefing meeting : chairs/rapporteurs for group work sessions
Briefing meeting: panellists
Registration: Hotel ILF
Buffet dinner (at the hotel)Thursday 8 November8.00 8.45Registration: Hotel ILF 9.00
Chair:
J. Fryc
Chair:
M. FlemingPlenary
Official opening: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
Representative of the Council of Europe J. Sheils
Overview of the Conference M. Fleming (General Rapporteur)
The LE perspective:
Complexities and orientations P-H. van de Ven
LS and LAC illustrated by reading I. Pieper and H. Vollmer10.45 Break 11.15
Chair:
M. ByramPlenary
Language and communication competences in the curriculum:
within subjects J-C. Beacco
at the end of primary education - Ch. Barré de Miniac
at the end of compulsory education L. Aase
Introduction to group work12.30 Buffet lunch (at the hotel)14.30Group Work : Curriculum specifications / common denominators16.00Break16.3018.00
Chair:
J. Sheils
18.3020.00Plenary
Panel: Languages of schooling, socially disadvantaged learners and equal opportunities
E. Ryen (Norway) D. Dullaghan (Ireland) P. Sieber (Switzerland) I. Gogolin (Germany) A. Rasmantienè (Lithuania) - J. Bischofová (Czech Republic)
Summing-up of first day M. Fleming
Buffet dinner (at the hotel)
Friday 9 November9.00
Chair: M. FlemingPlenary:
Reports from groups 09.30 10.30
Chair: M. FlemingAspects of Language as a subject
Introduction (I. Pieper)
The literary canon M. Fleming
Writing genres in language as subject L. Aase
Discussion10.30-11.00 Break11.00-12.30
Chair: H. Vollmer
Aspects of Language Across the Curriculum:
Commonalities, specificities and possible implications for LS and language education policies
- Introduction H. Vollmer
Ï% Sciences H. Vollmer
Ï% Mathematics S. Ongstad
Ï% History J-C Beacco
- Linking LS and LAC I. Pieper and J-C. Beacco
General discussion12.30-14.30Buffet Lunch (at the hotel)14.30 17.30
(including coffee/tea)
Plenary:
Introduction to group work - M. Byram
Group Work: The challenge of assessment18.30
19.00Departure for dinner
Dinner at Strahov Monastery
Saturday 10 November
9.00 9.30
Chair: M. ByramPlenary:
Reports from groups9.30 - 10.15
Chair : M. ByramMaking the best use of assessment - W. Martyniuk
- Portfolio evaluation a medium for learning E. Krogh
Discussion10.15 10.45Languages of education and languages of schooling: perspectives for a framework D. Coste10.45 11.15Coffee break11.15 12.30- Plenary discussion
- Summing up M. Fleming
- Official closure : J. Fryc and J. Panthier
Appendix 2: List of preliminary studies
AuthorsTitle of the Studies Language as a subject (LS)Text, literature and Bildung Laila Aase, Mike Fleming, Irène Pieper, Florentina SimihaianText, literature and Bildung comparative perspectives Mike FlemingThe Literary Canon: implications for the teaching of language as subject Laila Aase, Mike Fleming, Irène Pieper, Florentina SimihaianPortfolio in LS teaching and learningLanguage across the curriculum (LAC)
Primary Education
Language Across the Curriculum in Primary Education - Three case studies and implications for a European FrameworkMike ByramIntroduction and conclusionChristine Barré de MiniacCase study : France Jon SchmidtCase Study: NorwayMarkus HammannCase Study: Saxony-Anhalt, GermanyLanguage across the curriculum (LAC)
Secondary EducationHistoryJean-Claude Beacco, Martin Sachse,
Arild ThornbjorsenA descriptive framework for communicative/linguistic competences involved in the teaching and learning of historyArild ThornbjorsenCase Study: Norway - History in lower secondary education - the example of NorwayJean-Claude BeaccoCase study: France - Communicative/linguistic competences in the history syllabuses of the Education Nationale Française - Brief commentsMartin SachseCase study: Bavaria (Germany) - History curricula in BavariaWerner WiaterStudy: Empirical monitoring / evaluation MathematicsLanguage in Mathematics?
A comparative study of four national curriculaSigmund OngstadLanguage in Mathematics? A comparative study of four national curriculaBirgit PepinLanguage across the mathematics curriculum in EnglandBrian HudsonLanguage across the mathematics curriculum in SwedenFlorence Mihaela SingerLanguage across the mathematics curriculum in RomaniaSigmund OngstadLanguage and communication in Norwegian curricula for mathematics Birgit PepinCulture, language and mathematics education:
aspects of language in English, French and German mathematics educationFlorence Mihaela SingerLanguage across the mathematics curriculum: some aspects related to cognition
SciencesHelmut VollmerLanguage and Communication in the Sciences at the end of Secondary (compulsory) Education: Summary and Conclusion of four case studiesJenny LewisThe National Science Curriculum for England, age 14-16Stein Dankert KolstoThe Role of Language and Citizenship in the Norwegian science curriculumHelmut VollmerLanguage and Communication in the Sciences: A Case Study on GermanyTaeána HolasováEducation Framework and an Integrated Science Module in the Czech RepublicStein Dankert KolstoScience education for citizenship through language competenceJenny LewisLanguage for Learning Science: A Social Constructivist PerspectiveAssessment GroupEvaluation and assessment within the domain of Language(s) of EducationWaldemar MartyniukIntroductionJosé NoijonsThe Relevance of International Assessment for the development of the Framework for the Languages of EducationMike FlemingThe Challenge of Assessment within Language(s) of EducationWaldemar Martyniuk Assessing competences at the end of compulsory schooling the Polish caseTransversal concepts and TerminologyAlexandru Cri_an, Daniel Coste, Marisa Cavalli, Piet-Hein Van de VenA European reference document for languages of education? Appendix 3: List of participants
NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
ALBANIA
Ms Adriatike Lami, Ministry of Education and Science, Rruga e Durrësit No. 23, TIRANA / ALBANIA
e-mail: adriatikelami@gmail.com
WL/LT: E
ANDORRA
Mme Francesca Junyent Montagne, Directrice du Département de l'Enseignement scolaire et des relations internationales, Ministeri d'Educació, Formació Professional, Joventut i Esports, Av. Rocafort, 21-23 - AD 600 Sant Julià de Lòria - Principat d'Andorra
Tel: + 376 74 33 00 / + 376 74 33 25 / + 376 32 22 42 (portable) / Fax: + 376 74 33 11 /
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:fjunyent.gov@andorra.ad" fjunyent.gov@andorra.ad
WL/LT: F
ARMENIA
Ms Narine Hekekyan, Assistant Professor, Chair of Armenology, Yerevan State Linguistic University, #80, 40 Pushkin str., Yerevan 0002
Tel: +374 91 41 21 45 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:narhek@yahoo.co.uk" narhek@yahoo.co.uk
WL/LT: E
AUSTRIA
Mr Gunther Abuja, Director, Osterreichisches Sprachen-Kompetenz-Zentrum, Hans-Sachs-Gasse 3, A-8010 Graz
Tel: +43/316 /824150-18 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:abuja@sprachen.ac.at" abuja@sprachen.ac.at
WL/LT: E
Ms Anna Lasselsberger (teacher, teacher trainer), undesrealgymnasium 15 (European High School), Henriettenplatz 6, A - 1150 Wien
Tel: +43 1 8936743 / Fax: +43 1 8936743 22 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:anna.lasselsberger@gmx.at" anna.lasselsberger@gmx.at
WL/LT: E
BELGIUM
French Community
Mme Anne-Marie Beckers, Inspectrice de français, 36 rue de Perck, B - 1630 Linkebeek
Tel: +32 2 380 80 56 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:anne-marie.beckers@cfwb.be" anne-marie.beckers@cfwb.be
WL/LT: F
Flemish Community
Ms Hilde VANDERHEYDEN, Advisor, Curriculum Department / Departement Onderwijs en Vorming, Hendrik Consciencegebouw, Koning Albert II laan 15 (2 B 05),
B-1210 BRUSSELS
Tel: +32 2 553 88 30 / Fax: +32 2 553 88 35 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "BLOCKED::mailto:hilde.vanderheyden@ond.vlaanderen.be" \o "mailto:hilde.vanderheyden@ond.vlaanderen.be" hilde.vanderheyden@ond.vlaanderen.be
WL: E
CROATIA
Mr Sreko LISTE`, Education and Teacher Training Agency, Tolstojeva 32, 21 000 Split
Tel: +385 21 340 995 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:srecko.listes@azoo.hr" \o "mailto:srecko.listes@azoo.hr" srecko.listes@azoo.hr
WL/LT: E
CYPRUS / CHYPRE
Mr Nikos Pentaras, Inspector of Elementary Education, Department of Elementary Education, Ministry of Education and Culture, Kimon and Thucydides Streets, 1434 Nicosia
Tel: +357 22800929 (office) / +357 99609491 (mobile) / +357 22424169 (home) / Fax: +357 22305126
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:npentaras@cytanet.com.cy" npentaras@cytanet.com.cy
WL/LT: E
CZECH REPUBLIC
Mr Karel ebesta, The Institute of the Czech Language and Theory of Communication, Charles University, Prague, nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38 Praha 1
Tel: 420 221619215 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:karel.sebesta@ff.cuni.cz" karel.sebesta@ff.cuni.cz
WL/LT: E
Ms Marie Hádková, Head of the Department of the Czech Studies, Faculty of Education, J.E Purkyne University, Usti nad Labem, eské mláde~e 8, 100 96 Ústí nad Labem
Tel: 420 723 852 508/ e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:hadkova@pf.ujep.cz" hadkova@pf.ujep.cz
WL/LT: E
Ms Gabriela Baladová, Research Institute of Pedagogy, Prague, Novodvorská 1010/14, 142 01 Praha 4
Tel: 420 261341462 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:baladova@vuppraha.cz" baladova@vuppraha.cz
WL/LT: E
Ms Kamila Sladkovská, Research Institute of Pedagogy, Prague, Novodvorská 1010/14,142 01 Praha 4
Tel: 420 261341461 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:sladkovska@vuppraha.cz" sladkovska@vuppraha.cz
WL/LT: E
Ms Jana Bischofová, Institute of Czech StudiesCharles University, Prague, nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38 Praha 1
Tel: 420 607845639 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:jana.bischofova@ff.cuni.cz" jana.bischofova@ff.cuni.cz
WL/LT: E
Ms Markéta MICHÁLKOVÁ, The Czech Technical University, Technická 2, 160 000 Praha 6
Tel: 420 608 331182 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:marketa.michalkova@gmail.com" marketa.michalkova@gmail.com
WL/LT: E
Ms Vera SCHMIDTOVÁ, The Institute of the Czech National Corpus, Faculty of Arts Charles University, Prague, nám. J. Palacha 2, 116 38 Praha 1,
Tel: 420 224 242 613 / e-meil: HYPERLINK "mailto:vera.schmiedtova@ff.cuni.cz" vera.schmiedtova@ff.cuni.cz
WL/LT: E
Ms Katerina HLINOVA, The Institute for Language and Preparatory Studies, Charles University, 290 36 Podebrady-Zamek
Tel.: 00420 325 615 291 / e-mail. HYPERLINK "mailto:katerina.hlinova@ujop.cuni.cz" katerina.hlinova@ujop.cuni.cz
WL/LT: E
ESTONIA
Mr Jaak Viller, Head of Language Policy Department of Ministry of Education and Research, Munga 18, 50088 Tartu
Tel: +372 7350221 / mob: +372 53306610 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:jaak.viller@hm.ee" jaak.viller@hm.ee
WL/LT: E
FINLAND
Ms Pirjo SINKO, Counsellor of Education, National Board of Education, P.O. Box 380, FI 00531 HELSINKI
Tel: 358 9 7747 7281 / Fax: 358 9 7747 7823 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:pirjo.sinlo@oph.fi" pirjo.sinko@oph.fi
WL/LT: E
France
Mme Viviane BOUYSSE, Inspectrice générale de l'éducation nationale, Ministère de l'éducation nationale, Inspection générale, Groupe enseignement primaire, 107, rue de Grenelle, 75007 Paris
Tel: 01 55 55 34 23 / Fax: 01 55 55 13 73 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:viviane.bouysse@education.gouv.fr" \o "mailto:viviane.bouysse@education.gouv.fr" viviane.bouysse@education.gouv.fr
WL/LT: F
GERMANY
Mr Christof K. Arnold, Landesinstitut für Schule und Ausbildung (L.I.S.A), Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Ellerried 5, 19061 Schwerin
Tel: +385/760-1719 / Fax: +385/711188 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:c.arnold@lisa-mv.de" c.arnold@lisa-mv.de
WL/LT: E
GEORGIA
Ms Tamara JAKELI, Coordinator of Humanitarian Subjects Group, National Curriculum and Assessment Center, The Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia, 52 Dimitri Uznadze str., 0102 Tbilisi
Tel: +995 99 15 49 85 / Mob.: +99 577-454985 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:tjakeli@ganatleba.org" tjakeli@ganatleba.org
WL/LT: F
GREECE
Mr Joseph CHRYSHOCHOOS, Educational Consultant at the Pedagogic Institute, Athens, 94 Pindou Street, Moschato 18345, Piraeus
Tel: +30 210 48 35 821 / Fax: +30 210 48 35 821 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:jchrys@mail.kapatel.gr" jchrys@mail.kapatel.gr
WL/LT: E
HOLY SEE
Apologised for absence / Excusé
HUNGARY
Mme Zsuzsa HORVÁTH, Institut National de lEnseignement Public, OKI, Dorottya utca 8., H - 1051 Budapest
Tel: +36 1 235 7279 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:horvathzs@oki.hu" horvathzs@oki.hu
WL/LT: F
ICELAND
Apologised for absence / Excusé
IRELAND
Mr Diarmuid Dullaghan, Primary District Inspector, Department of Education and Science, Regional Development Centre, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Dublin Road, Dundalk, Co. Louth
Tel: + 42 9381791 (office) / 087 6501014 (mobile) / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:diarmuidodeall@eircom.net" diarmuidodeall@eircom.net
WL/LT: E
ITALY
Ms Anna PIPERNO, Dirigente Tecnico Direzione Generale per gli Ordinamenti Scolastici, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Viale Trastevere 76/A, I 00153 ROMA
Fax: 06 58493381 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:anna.piperno@istruzione.it" anna.piperno@istruzione.it
WL/LT: E
Ms Giulia Di NicuolO, Dirigente Tecnico Direzione Generale per gli Ordinamenti Scolastici, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Viale Trastevere 76/A, I 00153 ROMA
Fax: 06 58493381 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:giulia.dinicuolo@istruzione.it" giulia.dinicuolo@istruzione.it
WL/LT: E
LATVIA
Ms Olita ARKLE, Ministry of Education and Science, Centre for Curriculum Development and Examinations, Valnu Street 2, LV- 1050 RIGA
Tel: +371 7216500 / Fax: +371 7223801 / E-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:olita.arkle@isec.gov.lv" olita.arkle@isec.gov.lv
WL/LT: E
LIECHTENSTEIN
Apologised for absence / Excusé
LITHUANIA
Ms Audron Albina Razmantien, Chief Officer of Basic and Secondary Education Division of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania, A. Volano str. 2/7, LT-01516 VILNIUS
Tel: +370 5 2191149 / Fax: +370 5 261 20 77 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:audrone.razmantiene@smm.lt" audrone.razmantiene@smm.lt
WL/LT: E
Ms Raimonda Jarien, Senior Specialist of Linguistic and Artistic education, Division of Educational Development Center (under the Ministry of Education), M. Katkaus str. 44, LT-09217 VILNIUS
Tel: +370 5 2109827 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:raimonda.jariene@smm.spc.lt" \o "mailto:raimonda.jariene@smm.spc.lt" raimonda.jariene@smm.spc.lt
WL/LT: E
LUXEMBOURG
Mme Edmée BESCH, Responsable de l'enseignement des langues au secondaire, Ministère de l'Education nationale et de la Formation professionnelle, 29, rue Aldringen, L-2926 Luxembourg
Tel: +352 478-5107 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:besch@men.lu" besch@men.lu
WL/LT: F / E
MALTA
Ms Mary Anne Spiteri, Assistant Director, Curriculum Management, The Curriculum Centre, The Mall, Floriana CMR02
Tel: +356 2558 7107 or (+356) 2124 8693 / Fax: +356 2124 8693
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:mary.a.spiteri@gov.mt" \o "mailto:mary.a.spiteri@gov.mt" mary.a.spiteri@gov.mt
WL/LT: E
MOLDOVA
Ms Elena Cartaleanu, str. Independentei, 16, ap. 103, Chisinau MD-2043
Tel/Fax: 373 22 768649 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:lenuta@seznam.cz" lenuta@seznam.cz
WL/LT: E
MONTENEGRO
Ms Danijela Djilas, Advisor for general education and international cooperation, Department for introduction of curriculum and standards in education system Bureau for Educational Services, Marka Miljanova St. 17, 81000 Podgorica / MONTENEGRO
Tel: +382 81 408 999 / Fax: +381 81 408 927 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:djilasd@mn.yu" djilasd@mn.yu / HYPERLINK "mailto:danijela.djilas@gmail.com" danijela.djilas@gmail.com
WL/LT: E
NETHERLANDS
Mr Helge BONSET, SLO, P.O. Box 2041, NL 7500 CA Enschede
Tel:+ 31 (0) 53 48 40 296 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:H.Bonset@slo.nl" H.Bonset@slo.nl
WL/LT: E / F
Mr Teun MEESTRINGA, SLO, P.O. Box 2041, NL 7500 CA Enschede
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:T.Meestringa@slo.nl" T.Meestringa@slo.nl
WL/LT: E
NORWAY
Ms Jorunn Berntzen, Senior adviser, Ministry of Education and Research, PO Box 81119 Dep, N-0032 OSLO 1
Tel: 47 22 24 73 95 /Fax 47 22 24 27 31 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:jbe@kd.dep.no" jbe@kd.dep.no
WL/LT: E
POLAND
Mrs Barbara CZARNECKA-CICHY, Chief of Baccalaurate Division, Central Board of Examinations, ul. Aucka 11, 00-842 Warsaw
Tel: +48 22 656 37 18 / Fax +48 22 656 37 57 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:egzamin4@cke.edu.pl" egzamin4@cke.edu.pl
WL/LT: E
Ms Barbara SKACZKOWSKA, advisor to the Minister, Ministry of National Education, al. Szucha 25, 00-918 Warsaw
Tel: +48 22 34.74.629 / Fax: + 48 22 34.74 253 / e-mail HYPERLINK "mailto:barbara.skaczkowska@men.gov.pl" barbara.skaczkowska@men.gov.pl
WL/LT: F
Portugal
Mme Regina DUARTE, Ministère de lEducation du Portugal, Responsable pédagogique pour le curriculum de la langue portugaise, Direcção-Geral de Inovação e de Desenvolvimento Curricular, Av. 24 de Julho, nº140, P - 1399-025 Lisboa
Tel: +213934598 / Fax: +213934685 /e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:regina.duarte@dgidc.min-edu.pt" \o "mailto:regina.duarte@dgidc.min-edu.pt" regina.duarte@dgidc.min-edu.pt
WL/LT: F / E
Mme Lina Varela. Direcção Geral da Inovação e Desenvolvimento Curricular (ME), Av. 24 de Julho, 140, P - 1399-025 LISBOA
Tel: +21 393 45 83 / Fax: +21 393 46 85 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:lina.varela@dgidc.min-edu.pt
" lina.varela@dgidc.min-edu.pt
WL/LT: F
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Ms Irina KHALEEVA, Rector, Moscow State Linguistic University, stozhenka 38, 119034 Moscow
Tel/Fax: +7 (495) 246 28 07 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:shleg@linguanet.ru" shleg@linguanet.ru
WL/LT: E
SAN MARINO
Mrs Laura GOBBI, Professor of the Department of Education, University of San Marino, Via Napoleone Bonaparte 3, 47890 SAN MARINO
Tel. 378 549882546 / Fax 378 549882554 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:laura.gobbi@unirsm.sm" laura.gobbi@unirsm.sm
WL/LT: E
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Mme Darina De Jaegher, Statny pedagogicky ustav, Pluhova 8, P.O.Box 26, SK - 830 00 BRATISLAVA
Tel.: +421 2 49276 308 / Fax.: +421 2 49276 195 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:Jaegher@statpedu.sk" Jaegher@statpedu.sk
WL/LT: F
Mr Július Hauser, Director, Statny pedagogicky ustav, Pluhova 8, P.O.Box 26, SK - 830 00 BRATISLAVA
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:julius.hauser@statpedu.sk" julius.hauser@statpedu.sk
WL/LT: E
SLOVENIA
Ms Ljudmila IVSEK, Counselor for Slovene language at the National Institute of Education, Zavod RS za solstvo, Poljanska c. 28, 1000 Ljubljana
Tel: +386 1 300 51 37 / Fax: +386 1 300 51 99 / e-mail; HYPERLINK "mailto:Ljudmila.Ivsek@zrss.si" Ljudmila.Ivsek@zrss.si
WL/LT: E
Ms Marija }vegli
, senior advisor, National Board of Education, Cankarjeva 1, 3000 Celje
Tel: 386 3 490 79 38; 386 31 515 179 / Fax: 386 3 490 79 40 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:marica.zveglic@zrss.si" marica.zveglic@zrss.si
Home address
Podgorje ob Sevni
ni 4, 8292 Zabukovje
Tel: +386 7 818 80 88 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:marica.zveglic@guest.arnes.si" marica.zveglic@guest.arnes.si
WL/LT: E
SPAIN
Ms Pilar Pérez Esteve, Directora de Programa, Dirección General de Cooperación Territorial y Alta Inspección, Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Los Madrazo 15-17, 28071 MADRID
Tel: +34 630452019 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:pilar.pereze@mec.es" pilar.pereze@mec.es
WL/LT: E
SWEDEN
Mrs Karin Hector-Stahre, Director of Education, Swedish National Agency for Education, S-106 20 Stockholm
Tel: +46 8 52 73 32 76 / Mobile: +46 733 77 32 76 / Fax: +46 8 24 44 20 /
e-mail: karin.hector-stahre@skolverket.se
WL/LT: E
SWITZERLAND
M. Olivier Maradan, Secrétaire général adjoint, Responsable de lunité de coordination scolarité obligatoire, CDIP/EDK, Zähringerstrasse 25, Case postale 5975, CH- 3001 Berne
Tel: +41 31 309 51 11 / Fax: +41 31 309 51 50 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:maradan@edk.ch" maradan@edk.ch / HYPERLINK "http://www.cdip.ch" http://www.cdip.ch
WL/LT: F
M. Peter SIEBER, Pädagogische Hochschule Zürich, Prorektorat Fachbereiche, Hirschengraben 28, CH - 8090 Zürich
Tel: +41 43 305 51 46 / Fax: +41 (0)43 305 54 55 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:peter.sieber@phzh.ch" peter.sieber@phzh.ch
WL/LT: F
TURKEY
Mr Huseyin Alp BOYDAK, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Baskanligi, Teknik Okullar, Besevler/Ankara TURKEY
Tel:+90 312 2152056 / Mobile:+90 532 4864054
WL/ LT: E
UKRAINE
Ms Oksana Karpyuk, Vidavnitstvo Libra Terra, 10 Lypova St., Ternopil 46025
Tel: 380352231039 / mob: 80979006523 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:karpiuk@i.ua" karpiuk@i.ua
WL/LT: E
UNITED KINGDOM
Mr Paul Wright, English Adviser, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 83 Piccadilly, LONDON, W1J 8QA
Tel: +44 (0)20 7509 5853 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:wrightp@qca.org.uk" wrightp@qca.org.uk
WL/LT: E
ORGANISERS
Mr Jindrich FRYC, Department for International Relations, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 7, Karmelitska, 118 12 Praha 1
WL/LT: E
Ms Irena Maskovà, Department for International Relations, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 7, Karmelitska, 118 12 Praha 1
tel.: +420 257 193 611 / fax: +420257 193 397 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:maskova@msmt.cz" maskova@msmt.cz
WL/LT: E
Coordinating Group
Mr Mike Fleming
General Rapporteur, School of Education, University of Durham, Leazes Road, UK - DURHAM DH1 1TA, UNITED KINGDOM
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:m.p.fleming@durham.ac.uk" m.p.fleming@durham.ac.uk
WL/LT: E
Ms Laila Aase
Nordisk institutt, Universitetet i Bergen, Sydnesplassen 7, N - 5007 BERGEN, NORWAY
Tel: 47 55 58 24 39 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:laila.aase@nor.uib.no/" laila.aase@nor.uib.no/ HYPERLINK "mailto:laila.aase@lle.uib.no" laila.aase@lle.uib.no
WL/LT: E
M. Jean-Claude Beacco
Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle-Paris III, 46 rue Saint Jacques, 75230 PARIS Cedex, FRANCE
Tel: 33 (0)1 40 46 29 25/29 28/29 29 / Fax: 33 (0)1 40 46 29 30 /
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:Jean-Claude.Beacco@univ-paris3.fr" Jean-Claude.Beacco@univ-paris3.fr / HYPERLINK "mailto:jean-claude.beacco@wanadoo.fr" jean-claude.beacco@wanadoo.fr
WL/LT: F / E
Mr Michael Byram
University of Durham, School of Education, Leazes Road, UK - DURHAM DH1 1TA, UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 44 191 374 35 30/35 05 / Fax: 44 191 374 35 06 / e-mail: HYPERLINK mailto:m.s.byram@durham.ac.uk m.s.byram@durham.ac.uk
WL/LT: E / F
Mme Marisa CAVALLI
IRRE VDA, Institut Régional de Recherche Educative pour le Val d'Aoste, Département de la Recherche Educative, 24, Avenue du Bataillon "Aosta", I - 11100 Aoste Italie
e-mail:
WL/LT: F
M. Daniel COSTE
Professeur émérite, Ecole normale supérieure Lettres et Sciences humaines, 17, rue Plumet, 75015 PARIS - FRANCE
Tel/Fax: (01) 56 58 18 60 /e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:dlcoste2@wanadoo.fr" dlcoste2@wanadoo.fr
WL/LT: F / E
Mr Alexandru Cri_an
Executive President, Center Education 2000+, Assoc. Professor Faculty of Letters, University of Bucharest, Str. Caderea Bastiliei, Nr. 33, Sector 1, Bucuresti / RoUMANIE / cod 010613
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:acrisan@cedu.ro" acrisan@cedu.ro
WL/LT: E
Mr Waldemar Martyniuk
Jagiellonian University, Center for Polish Language and Culture, ul. Grodzka 64, PL-31-044 KRAKOW / POLAND
Tel: +48-12-2620163 / Fax:+48-12-6631815 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:wmartyniuk@hotmail.com" wmartyniuk@hotmail.com
WL/LT: E
Sigmund Ongstad
Faculty of Education, Oslo University, Pb 4, st. Olavs plass, N-0130 OSLO / Norway
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:Sigmund.Ongstad@lu.hio.no" Sigmund.Ongstad@lu.hio.no
wl/lt: e
Ms Irene Pieper
Institut für deutsche Sprache und Literatur, Universität Hildesheim, Marienburger Platz 22, D - 31141 Hildesheim
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:i.pieper@em.uni-frankfurt.de" i.pieper@em.uni-frankfurt.de
WL/LT: E
Ms Florentina Samihaian
National Board for Curriculum, str. Carei nr. 1, bl. A11, sc. A, et. 6, ap. 38, sector 2, 022201 BUCURESTI, ROMANIA
Tel: +40 255 4799 / Fax: 40 210 8692 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:tinasamihaian@gmail.com" tinasamihaian@gmail.com
WL/LT: E
Mr Piet-Hein van de Ven
ILS, Graduate School of Education, Radboud University, Nijmegen / Pays-Bas
Adresse pour correspondence:
Erasmusplein 1, E.20.29, NL - 6525 HT Nijmegen / PAYS-BAS
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:P.vandeven@ils.ru.nl" P.vandeven@ils.ru.nl
WL/LT: E
Mr Helmut Vollmer
Universität Osnabrück, FB 7: Sprach-u.Lit.wiss, Leiter der Forschungsstelle, Bilingualismus und Mehrsprachigkeit, Neuer Graben 40, D-49069 Osnabrück, GERMANY
Tel: +49 541 9694260 / Fax: +49 541 969 4886 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:hvollmer@uni-osnabrueck.de" hvollmer@uni-osnabrueck.de
WL/LT: E
Invited Experts
Mme Christine BarrÉ-de Miniac
IUFM Académie de Grenoble, Professeur des Universités, Présidente du Conseil Scientifique et Pédagogique, Laboratoire LIDILEM, 30, avenue Marcelin Berthelot, 38100 Grenoble
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:cbarre@grenoble.iufm.fr" cbarre@grenoble.iufm.fr
WL/LT: F / E
Mr Klaus-Börge Boeckmann
Institut für Germanistik der Universität Wien, (Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache), Dr.-Karl-Lueger-Ring 1, A - 1010 Wien
Tel: +43-599664-42173 / od. +43-1-4277-42173/ Fax: +43-1-4277-42180 /
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:boeckmk2@univie.ac.at" boeckmk2@univie.ac.at
WL/LT: E
Ms Ingrid Gogolin
Institut für International und Interkulturell Vergleichende Erzöhungswissenschaft, der Universität Hamburg
Fachbereich 06, Von-Melle-Park 8, D - 20146 HAMBURG / GERMANY
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:gogolin@erzwiss.uni-hamburg.de" gogolin@erzwiss.uni-hamburg.de
WL/LT: E
Mr Marcus Hammann
Uni Münster / Abt. Biologiedidaktik, Z. 2109, Fliednerstraße 21, D-48149 Münster / Germany
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:hammann.m@uni-muenster.de" hammann.m@uni-muenster.de
WL/LT: E
Ms Taeána Holasová
Research Institute of Pedagogy, Prague, Novodvorská 1010/14, 142 01 Praha 4
Tel: 420 261341463 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:holasova@vuppraha.cz" holasova@vuppraha.cz
WL/LT: E
Ms Ellen Krogh
Associate professor Ph.D., Institute of Philosophy, Education and the study of Religions, University of Southern Denmark, DK Campusvej 55, 5620 Odense M / Denmark
Tel: +45 65503625 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:ellen.krogh@ifpr.sdu.dk" ellen.krogh@ifpr.sdu.dk
WL/LT: E
Ms Jenny LEWIS
University of Leeds, School of Education, UK - Leeds LS2 9JT / UNITED KINGDOM
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:J.M.Lewis@education.leeds.ac.uk" J.M.Lewis@education.leeds.ac.uk
WL/LT: E
Ms Else Ryen
University of Oslo, Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, P.O.Box 1102 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:else.ryen@iln.uio.no" else.ryen@iln.uio.no
WL/LT: E
Ms Florence Mihaela Singer
Ph.D., Head of Curriculum Department, Institute for Educational Sciences, 37 Stirbei Voda, 70733 Bucharest / Romania
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:mikisinger@gmail.com" mikisinger@gmail.com
WL/LT: E / F
Mr Jon Smidt
Sör-Tröndelag University College, Faculty of Teacher and Interpreter Education, HiST ALT, Rotvoll, No-7004 Trondheim / Norway
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:jon.smidt@hist.no" jon.smidt@hist.no
WL/LT: E
Mr Arild ThorNbjornsen
Deputy Director General, Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs, Box 8119 Dep., N - 0032 OSLO / NORWAY
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:art@kd.dep.no" art@kd.dep.no
WL/LT: E
Mr Eike THÜRMANN
Wiedbach 68, D-45357 Essen / GERMANY
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:thuermanneike@googlemail.com" thuermanneike@googlemail.com
WL/LT: E
COUNCIL OF EUROPE HYPERLINK "http://www.coe.int" www.coe.int
Department of Language Education and Policy
Language Policy Division www.coe.int/lang
Mr Joseph Sheils
Head of the Language Policy Division / Chef de la Division des Politiques linguistiques
Tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 20 79 / e-mail: HYPERLINK mailto:joseph.sheils@coe.fr joseph.sheils@coe.int
Mme Johanna Panthier
Administratrice / Administrator
Tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 23 84 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:panthier@coe.int" johanna.panthier@coe.int
Mlle Corinne COLIN
Secrétariat / Secretariat
Tel: 33 (0)3 88 41 35 33 / e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:corinne.colin@coe.int" corinne.colin@coe.int
Interpreters
Mme Claude JEAN-ALEXIS
46 rue de dunkerque 75009 Paris
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:cjean-alexis@wanadoo.fr" cjean-alexis@wanadoo.fr
M. Olivier Péan
52 rue Colbert, 92700 Colombes
Tel: 01 42 70 69 50 / 06 14 91 09 97
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:olivier.pean@free.fr" olivier.pean@free.fr
Appendix 4: Languages of Education Diagram
Languages in / of education
The field
Appendix 5: Case studies on disadvantaged learners
Else Ryen (Norway): Special Arrangements for Disadvantaged Pupils
I would like to focus on some challenges connected to pupils from language minorities in upper secondary school. In Norway more than 95 percent of all the pupils go directly on to upper secondary education and training after leaving lower secondary school at the age of 16. There are differences among the majority and the minority group, but also among the linguistic minority pupils, the vast majority, about 90 percent, attend upper secondary school.
But there is a high drop-out rate, which is a common problem in many of our countries, and the rate is higher among minority pupils than among the majority group although the differences between the groups have become smaller in recent years. The greatest challenges currently lie among linguistic minority pupils taking vocational studies. Especially boys who have both minority and low socio-economic backgrounds are at risk.
Another challenge in upper secondary education concerns ethnic minority pupils who are late-comers into Norwegian schools, and especially pupils over the age of 16, who have not completed primary and lower secondary education, give rise to concern.
So how to solve the problem there are of course no simple solutions. But there are measures that can be taken to meet some of the challenges.
In ensuring adequate education and inclusion of all pupils regardless of their linguistic or socio-economic background it is of great importance to have targeted action programs. To meet this requirement there has in Norway been launched different strategy plans by the Ministry of Education and Research, one of which should be mentioned here: Strategic plan Equal Education in practice! Strategy for better learning and greater participation by language minorities in day-care centres, schools and education.
( HYPERLINK "http://www.utdanningsdirektoratet.no/templates/udir/TM_Artikkel.aspx?id=2666" http://www.utdanningsdirektoratet.no/templates/udir/TM_Artikkel.aspx?id=2666)
The plan embodies 33 different measures which contribute to meeting the challenges in a multilingual and multicultural school. Three of the measures are dealing with minority pupils in upper secondary education, of which one has been initiated in order to develop more flexible and goal-oriented teaching for students with insufficient education and with brief residency in Norway. Through collaboration between selected municipalities, county authorities and schools there has been implemented a pilot project.
As part of the project The National Centre for Multicultural Education ( HYPERLINK "http://www.hio.no/content/view/full/456" http://www.hio.no/content/view/full/456) is in the process of developing tools for deciding competence, and a preliminary version has been tried out in some selected schools.
In order to give adapted teaching it is of vital importance that the schools have sufficient information about the pupils backgrounds, both academic and non academic. It is well known, however, that many schools are badly informed about pupils with minority and migration backgrounds.
To help school leaders and teachers to be better informed about their pupils with migrant background, the tools mentioned entail a language biography. It is also important that the schools get better information about the pupils previous schooling and / or other experiences of learning. How literate are the pupils? This question applies not only to language as such, but also to math literacy, digital literacy, visual literacy, i.e. understanding of signs in a wider context. It is also important to find out what kinds of non formal competence the pupils have a pupil might for example be good in calculation without formal training. Also vocational practice might be of relevance.
It is also of great importance for the schools to have information about the pupils motivation and about goals they have set for education and further work. Identifying the pupils competence is therefore much more than identifying their school background and language experiences. Evidently, in understanding the students backgrounds it is of invaluable importance to have teachers with good competence and linguistic and cultural awareness.
Research has, however, shown that only a few teachers have special competence in dealing with multilingual and multicultural matters and the lack of competent teachers seems to be higher in upper secondary school than in compulsory school. There are also a very small number of teachers with a migration background in Norwegian schools teachers who could have had a significant role to play, not at least in assessing late-comers previous knowledge and experiences and acting as mediators between school and home.
Dermot Dullaghan (Ireland): Provision for Disadvantaged Pupils
Context:
Ireland has changed from a country with a tradition of emigration to a country of immigration:
Since 2002 the Irish population has grown by 8.2% to 4.24 million in April 2006, our highest population on record since 1861. Within the EU, only Cyprus has a faster population growth.
Over 610,000 usual residents (14.7%) were born outside the State, compared with 10% in 2002, with EU status (excluding Ireland) accounting for nearly 440,000 (10.5%) of the total. The largest category are those who were born in Britain (5.3%), followed by Poland at 63,100 (1.5%), Lithuania at 24,800 (0.6%) and other EU countries at 78,800 (1.9%). Just under 50,000 were classified as African.
More than 25% of the population of large areas of Dublin, including most of the city centre and a number of outlying urban areas, are newcomers.
Similar patterns have emerged in the city centres of two other major cities in south and south-western Ireland - Cork and Limerick. It is becoming clear that there is a high concentration of newcomers in certain urban areas while at the same time small towns and rural areas across the country also have substantial numbers of newcomers. There is a general awareness of a need not to saturate specific areas when allocating housing. Monitoring is ongoing.
In 2006/07 school year, 31,000 (approx) newcomers enrolled in primary schools; 17,000 in post primary schools. 60% are estimated to come from non-English speaking background.
At very least some 12,000 primary pupils and 8,000 post-primary students almost certainly have a first language that is neither English nor Gaeilge/Irish. If present patterns of immigration continue, primary and post-primary figures of newcomer students are expected to increase annually for the foreseeable future. Many of these students will come to Ireland with little or no English.
The main measures taken by the Department for Education and Science up to 2007 to address the educational needs of newcomers was the allocation of Language Support Teachers to primary and post-primary schools. Allocation was capped at 2 teachers for a period of 2 years. Allocation of the posts was based on a ratio of 14:1. Inspectors examined and made recommendations on individual cases where primary schools sought more than 2 posts. (Start up grants paid to primary schools. Post-primary schools not qualifying for a full post were provided with grant aid to employ a teacher for the approved number of hours.)
Disadvantage
Low levels of literacy in schools serving poorer communities and families continue to cause concern. The National Anti-Poverty Strategy (NAPS) published 1997 and revised 2002 identifies educational disadvantage as a key focus of the five areas identified. NAPS targets include that the proportion of students with serious literacy difficulties should be halved by 2006; that participation rates to completion of upper second-level education, or equivalent should increase to 90% by 2006 [we are well on our way to the second target]
Challenges experienced leading to this reform include the lack of a standardized system for identifying levels of disadvantage in schools; limited early childhood education supports, insufficient focus on target setting, measurement of progress and outcomes (schools); insufficient steering and evaluation of some measures; insufficient coordination across schemes and cross-sectorally, limited attention to educational inclusion issues in pre-service and in-service teacher education.
Three reports are influential in this regard: [i] Reading Literacy in Disadvantaged Primary Schools Eivers, Shiel and Shortt 2005, ERC HYPERLINK "http://www.erc.ie" www.erc.ie [ii] Literacy and Numeracy in Disadvantaged Schools: Challenges for Teachers and Learners 2005, Inspectorate, DES, [iii] Survey of Traveller Education Provision (STEP) report - 2005, Inspectorate, DES, www.education.ie
This is a time of reflection, challenge and call to vigorous action for Irish educationalists, policy makers and teachers. It could be argued that assessment as a tool for education reform is now coming very much more strongly to the fore in this debate assessment-led reform.
Schooling in Ireland:
The school system in the Republic of Ireland is small by European standards just 770 or so post-primary schools and 3400 primary schools. Many of the latter are small, with half having four teachers or less (2006 figures). Administration of the education system (both primary and post-primary education) is centralized, with vocational schools and community colleges having some regional governance through Vocational Education Committees (VECs). At primary there are 8 class levels ( 2 infant classes followed by 1st to 6th). Enrolment in post-primary schools takes place upon transfer from 6th class. While post-primary schools may differ in respect of patronage/governance or management structure, they generally offer similar curricula. Students take state examinations at post-primary level: the Junior Certificate at end of 3 years junior cycle and Leaving Certificate at end of (minimum two year) senior-cycle. The Leaving Certificate is a high stakes examination upon which entry to university/ third-level education or the world of work depends. Both examinations are administered by the State Examinations Commission (SEC). The examinations are similar in style and content being largely written tests.
Ireland should not be viewed as inexperienced in language education. All primary schools teach two languages English and Irish. All students (barring case by case exemptions) study Irish and English throughout compulsory schooling. Modern languages have enjoyed a strong position in the post-primary curriculum. The majority of Irish students take at least one European language to Leaving Certificate level.
Significant developments at national level are the Post-Primary Languages Initiative and Modern Languages in Primary Schools Initiative (MLPSI 1999) new languages in primary schools. www.mlpsi.ie Guidelines from NCCA regarding teaching modern languages in primary schools were published in 2001. Anecdotal evidence showing that newcomers are achieving well in Gaeilge and newcomers and pupils in disadvantaged schools achieving well in language acquisition through the initiative. The evidence is still anecdotal at this stage, however.
All children residing in Republic of Ireland, including the children of refugees and migrant workers, are entitled to avail of primary and post-primary education up to the age of 18 regardless of legal status.
School attendance is compulsory for children aged from 6 16 under Education Welfare Act 2000, although almost all five year olds and half of all four year olds are in primary school.
Schools are obliged to enrol any child in respect of whom an application for admission has been made, under almost all circumstances only exception is where there is no physical capacity for further children to be enrolled.
The admissions policy of a school cannot discriminate on grounds of nationality or legal status.
Of course there is always the possibility that enrolment of newcomers may become polarized in certain schools within communities. To ensure that schools reflect appropriately the communities they serve, an Audit of School Enrolment Policies is taking place under the Directorate of Regional Services (Regional Offices Service) of the Department of Education and Science.
The audit covers schools at both primary and post-primary levels and all governance sectors. Aim - to examine the degree to which disparities exist between schools in terms of the enrolment of newcomer pupils and to achieve a full picture of school enrolment, (audit expanded to include pupils from the Traveller community and those with special education needs). Areas covered - Cork, Dublin, Galway, Kildare, Limerick, Longford, Louth, Sligo, Waterford and Wicklow.
First step - examination of the enrolments to determine if disparities exist between schools in terms of the enrolments of newcomers.
Similar exercise in relation to enrolments of Travellers and pupils with special education needs to be undertaken at a later stage.
Outcome of audit will determine measures to be taken by Department to ensure schools are representative of the community.
Issues and challenges regarding provision for newcomers these challenges may resonate with other members states experiences:
Resourcing: There developed in Ireland the understanding that the limit of 2 Language Support Teachers per school and the 2 year limit on language supports for student were inadequate. The Department of Education and Science immediately revised these levels of provision.
There is lower than warranted enrolment of newcomers in certain schools/areas and higher concentration in other schools. This parallels in some ways existing situation regarding education disadvantage.
Additional supports are required even if language is not an issue. International students may have other issues pertinent to the area of integration. The Home School Community Liaison service has a role to play here.
Mid-year entry to schools and issue of age-appropriate placement of children who might not previously have attended school.
Lack of information for parents in their native languages: There remain general on-going communications difficulties with parents due to language and/or cultural barriers. Need to explain policies and operations taken for granted with Irish parents. Difficulty accessing information about students prior educational levels and experiences is a challenge. Child may be only English speaker in household.
Some difficulties experienced by newcomer students between previous and present education (usually stop learning their mother tongue, but also different mathematics, history, etc. and the manner in which these subjects are learned through language); Difficulties in explaining concepts (mathematical concepts) to children with limited English - teaching time erosion
Poor language skills of students mask special education needs that would more easily be picked up in the general population.
Discipline issues with some newcomer students cultural differences and frustration regarding pace of learning
Lack of finance for extra-curricular activities
Action: Newcomers
Political response: Office of Integration
The educational needs of newcomer/ migrant children has been emphasised by the establishment of the Office for Integration and the appointment by the Taoiseach of Conor Lenihan TD (Minister of Parliament) as the Minister for Integration. Minister Lenihan is also a Minister of State in the Department of Education and Science and his Office will greatly help the development of a coordinated and cohesive response to the integration of newcomers to Ireland. In particular, it will focus upon the work undertaken by three Government Departments: Education and Science; Justice, Equality and Law Reform; and Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
Overall aim includes efficient and effective delivery of services to assist the integration across a number of inter-related areas and to avoid duplication and gaps in provision. Education is identified as critical in schools and workplace and community. The office has shared responsibility of collection of information on newcomers and best-practice.
With regard to the overall aims, the following innovations have been secured:
[i] Department of Education Steering Committee on the educational needs of newcomers:
Co-ordinates Department response to the education of newcomers
Identifies emerging issues relating to the education of newcomers
Proposes solutions to the issues identified
in dealing with above identification of emerging issues and identification of solutions the committee consults with groups such as school management and unions, Vocational Education Committee, the Reception and Integration Agency. It also provides for visiting Direct Provision Centres for asylum seekers, visits to schools and welcomes written submissions. It has membership of the Inter-Departmental Committee. on Immigration
Arranges for the implementation of agreed solutions/policies
Reports to the senior management of the Department and the Minister for Education on major issues in respect of above.
A Department circular (which is a statement of requirement) to all schools number 53/2007 issued May 2007.
It addresses:
Creating an inclusive school environment
Role of the language support teacher
Assessment of pupils levels of language proficiency
Additional teacher support
Useful materials and resources
Availability of support
[ii] Language Support Teachers: There are currently some 1,450 language support teachers at primary and post-primary levels for newcomer pupils who do not have English as their first language. The capping of provision at two Language Support Teachers per school is now gone and provision of language support is now extended beyond two years. As a result, some schools with a large number of newcomer children without English as their first language have up to 6 Language Support Teachers. Primary and Post-primary schools with less than 14 students receive grants or part-time hours allocated per specific number of students. There has been enhanced financial support secured for these schools. The government plan Towards 2016 provides for the overall number of language support teachers to reach approximately 1,800 by 2009.
Brief of the language support teacher has been developed:
Assist school in providing additional language support teaching for pupils. Use of allocation to be flexible and centred upon student need - school has flexibility in the deployment of support having regard to the proficiency levels of individual pupils and their evolving needs. It is recommended that students now receive additional language support teaching in the classroom or in small withdrawal groups in addition to the support they receive from the class teacher
Identify pupils requiring additional support, in collaboration with parents and class teachers
Administer the assessment materials developed by Integrate Ireland Language and Training
Devise appropriate language programmes
Deliver the programmes and record and monitor pupils progress
Share expertise
Communicate and disseminate good practice within school community to optimise the opportunities of pupils to develop proficiency in English. such good practice refers to having a defined whole-school policy :- that aids in identifying pupils requiring support; guides assessing levels of language proficiency; programme planning; recording and monitoring progress; communication with parents; where the roles of all school personnel clearly defined and understood by all.
[iii] IILT in-service and support for Language Support Teachers: Integrate Ireland Language and Training was established in 1999 by the Department of Education and Science. Its purposes are designing and delivering language and integration courses for adults with status to remain in Ireland and developing and producing materials and teachers resources for second language learners of all ages (many available on IILT website HYPERLINK "http://www.iilt.ie" www.iilt.ie). The Department funds IILT training seminars for language support teachers to assist them in meeting the English language needs of their students. Funding to IILT to provide training and resources for teachers and language tuition for refugees is currently in the order of ¬ 1.4m. All language support teachers are qualified with training provided annually on the Primary Curriculum. Seminars are provided for all language support teachers, part-time or whole-time. Teachers are provided with classroom materials (incl. European Language Portfolio) to assist them in meeting the English language needs of their students. These materials are developed in partnership with practising classroom teachers.
A concrete example has been the recent distribution by the Department of a resource book for English Language Support Teachers (Up and Away) to all primary schools which will serve as the basis for induction seminars for newly appointed Language Support Teachers. This links in appropriately with the existing curriculum for English (1999). It includes:
general information for schools
information for language support teachers
guidance on organising a language support programme - English Language Proficiency Benchmarks
Ideas on how to use the European Language Portfolio
Collection of varied classroom activities and resources
[iv] Language Assessment Materials: Language assessment kits, based on best international practice, have been developed with Integrate Ireland Language Training (IILT), an offshoot of Trinity College Dublin. They are designed to enable accurate initial and on-going assessment of language proficiency of newcomer children. They are nearing completion and they will be in primary schools before the end of this year. In the absence of a kit for post-primary students, which is in development, the kit can be used by post-primary schools.
The assessments focus upon the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. In designing the tests every effort has been made to select tasks that pupils encounter regularly in their language support classes. (Feedback from the piloting phase has indicated ease in test administration and that the tests elicited an accurate representation of pupils English language proficiency. At the end of the piloting process the tests were revised on the basis of pupil performance and detailed feedback from teachers.) The tests are designed to assess a pupils proficiency in English on entry to the school and subsequently determine progress across broad curriculum themes.
The design of IILTs English Language Proficiency Benchmarks mirror the 3 levels formerly required by DES in applications for language support. The levels which were formerly used were as follows:
Level 1 (now Level A1)
Student has very poor comprehension of English and very limited spoken English.
Level 2 (now level A2)
Understands some English and can speak English sufficiently well for basic communication.
Level 3 (now level B1)
Has competent communication skills in English.
The lowest level is A1 and, for newly arrived pupils with no existing English language proficiency, this level becomes the first teaching/learning target. A2 middle level denotes progress. The highest level used in the language support programme is B1 (also known as the threshold or target level). When pupils are capable of performing in the assessment tasks at this level, and of achieving the scores indicated in ALL four skills, they can have enough proficiency to engage in mainstream learning. The levels A1, A2 and B1 reflect the first three levels of the six point scale of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (© Council of Europe).
In order to achieve an accurate assessment of a pupils ability, each level is subdivided into three sub levels. These three levels reflect the concept of the pupils ability to do a particular task with a lot of help, with a little help, and with no help.
Three complete sets of tasks for English language assessment.
SET 1 Placement assessment
This set is intended for use with pupils who have arrived in the school recently as the content of the tests is not dependent on any curriculum learning.
SET 2 Progress and achievement assessment including the themes:
Myself, Our school, Colours, shapes and opposites
SET 3 Progress and achievement assessment including the themes:
People who help us, Myself, Our school, Colour, shapes and opposites,
Transport and travel, The local and wider community
Sets 2 and 3 are based on the Units of Work of the English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and include items related to thematic learning in language support class. These assessment tasks are suitable for use at any stage of language support, both to identify a pupils progress and to identify when language support may be terminated.
From this (ongoing formative) assessment an individual pupil profile of proficiency in English is created. This is the map forward for the pupil/ students learning. It is inevitable that progress will be made at different rates across the four skills. This sheet allows for successive assessments to be recorded and for progress and achievement relative to the different skills to be immediately apparent.
The assessment materials were, at the time of preparation of this presentation, being proof-read, the entire document can be viewed in Adobe at:
HYPERLINK "http://www.metaphor.ie/PrimaryAssessmentKit/" http://www.metaphor.ie/PrimaryAssessmentKit/
The proficiency benchmarks are the teachers tool, based on the themes and contents of the curriculum, and in the form of positive statement for student- I can at each of the three levels.
The point of the English Language Proficiency Benchmarks is threefold:
map the ground to be covered by the language teacher
supporting planning and delivery of language support including resource selection
provide a basis for assessing proficiency of newly-admitted students, monitoring progress and identify the point when the student no longer needs language support.
There are activities for young learners and the ELP plays a very important role in the learning of pupils from 1st class onwards.
Summary of all above:
The benchmarks map the territory
The ELP provides the pupil with a log to support and record his/ her journey
Resources and materials (IILT) support teacher in cycle of assess teach assess. The design of the approach very much encourages the cycle of assessment teaching assessment.
[v] Resource guidelines provided by National Council for Curriculum and assessment: Intercultural Education in the Primary School (2005) Post-Primary Guidelines (2006/7), English as An Additional Language in Irish Primary Schools (2005).
It is intended that these guidelines would be used by all schools irrespective of the composition of the school population. Aims of intercultural education are being concerned with enabling pupils to respect, celebrate and recognise the normality of diversity, promoting equality and challenging unfair discrimination.
Both sets of Intercultural Guidelines describe the context for intercultural education, the manner in which the curriculum supports the principles of intercultural education, approaches and methodologies, school planning, classroom planning, assessment and cultural diversity and language and interculturalism. Importance of adopting a whole-school approach where all members of the school community have a role and where interculturalism is incorporated into school planning e.g. enrolment and admissions policies, school code of behaviour and anti-bullying, school uniforms, religious education, involvement of parents in the school and community school links is being stressed. Teachers should become more culturally aware, start from where they feel comfortable, seek opportunities to use and extend activities in guidelines, include diverse cultural perspectives when planning, help pupils to develop skills of critical thinking, be aware of how we use language and increase an inclusive and culturally-diverse space for learning
Each primary teacher has a copy in English or Irish. Guidelines have also been created for post-primary schools
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) supports teachers and schools in developing a more inclusive learning environment and in providing students with knowledge and skills they need to participate in a multicultural world
All primary teachers receive training on Interculturalism: making children aware of other cultures and how these can enrich our society.
[vi] Communication: Translations for parents and students. Information on the Irish Education system has been placed on the Departments Website (www.education.ie) in 6 languages including Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Russian, Spanish and German. Newcomers area on the Department website will provide relevant educational material in different languages.
There has been the development of an information pack for non-Irish national parents on a shared North/South Ireland basis. The pack will include information on education services, adult and community education programmes along with information on the health services, welfare entitlements, housing allocations, etc. It is one of the next steps of overall provision and constitutes:
Tailored family support information pack and resource tools for non-Irish parents and practitioners working with immigrant families in Ireland
Information relating to local and national services, legislation and legal /administrative structures in Ireland including information on education services/structures, adult and community education programmes. It also covers health services, welfare entitlements, housing allocations, etc.
Translated into 10 most relevant languages and will contain training modules to assist in the promotion of positive parenting;
Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children has been appointed to manage the project;
Programme available in Autumn 2008 with full roll out and dissemination post-Autumn 2008.
[vii] Department funded research and its outcomes:
Research by Dr. Dympna Devine, School of Education and Lifelong Learning, UCD. (Devine, Kenny and MacNeela) funded by the Department of Education and Science in 2002, explored teaching and learning in newly multi-ethnic schools. The research had both a primary and a post-primary focus and 52 teachers were interviewed in addition to group interviews with 311 pupils. The researchers also attended group meetings of language support teachers.
The key issues emerging for teachers were the practical day to day challenges, the challenges to school ethos and sense of identity, relationships with parents and pupils and teaching and learning for diversity. The research concluded that teachers had contradictory perceptions in welcoming diversity and viewing it as a threat to the concept of our own. The research articulated a need for a coherent National Policy, leadership and professional development, curricular policy and class-level policy. Conclusions and recommendations of the research have begun to be addressed in the areas of National Policy, Curricular Policy, School-Level Policy and Class-Level Policy. However the area of providing continuous development opportunities for teachers needs further attention.
[viii] Other supports for schools:
A toolkit for Primary School Teachers teaching in mainstream classes has been developed on a North/ South basis and will be distributed to all primary schools, both North and South, in the 2007/8 school year. This toolkit was developed through the collaboration of IILT, ScoTENs, and a steering group which included Department policy makers. The aim of the toolkit is to support the inclusion in primary schools of pupils for whom English is a second language through incorporating best practice and providing suggestions, concrete ideas, exemplars and materials for use by all school staff.
The themes of preparation of the school for newcomers, their induction, promoting and nourishing inclusion and driving learning forward in community are the themes that may be interpreted as underpinning much of the toolkit. The toolkit includes high quality resources that may be used immediately in schools. The ELP is a feature of the toolkit. It is envisaged that a version for post-primary schools will be prepared in time for the school year beginning September 2008.
It can facilitate capacity building on a whole-school basis, covering:
Learning and teaching
The role of parents and community
Assessment and monitoring of students progress
Promoting the concept of inclusiveness through planning and policy development.
At post-primary level newcomer students engaged in studying for the leaving certificate can take an examination in their mother tongue and this counts as same as any other subject. Significant take up in Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian and Chinese. The exam counts for points and entry to college. Polish communities have begun to provide lessons in Polish language and culture.
The Trinity Immigration Initiative 2007-2010 was developed to identify effective and robust models at post-primary level that may be used in providing for pupils for whom English is an additional language. This is being conducted by the Centre for Language and Communication Studies and the Drumcondra and Blackrock Teacher Education Centres. Schools and teachers have also been invited to become involved in this project.
Possible next areas of focus
Training of teachers: The need for training for language support and class teachers at initial and in-service levels in primary and post-primary sectors.
Providing for pupils for whom English is an additional language is the responsibility of the whole-school and not the language support teacher. Pupils first language should not be ignored in schools but rather affirmed. Literacy engagement is crucial for pupils.
Ensuring that multicultural schools become intercultural schools and that children learn in an environment characterised by mutual respect for each other. The communities from which pupils come need to be considered. Intercultural Guidelines are for all schools irrespective of the composition of the school population.
Whole-school policies should reflect a view of diversity as an opportunity and not as a problem. Irish experience could usefully benefit from avoiding the difficulties regarding achievement of the second generation worse than the achievement of the first generation, exclusionary residential patterns, school enrolment patterns and violations of social justice.
English language training policy for adult migrants
DES and Office of the Minister for Integration
Independent review with international consultants
Cohesive and co-ordinated
Development of a national English language training policy and framework for legally-resident adult immigrants
Based on extensive stakeholder consultation and international best-practice
The review involves extensive consultation with stakeholders who include providers of English language training (VECs, third level institutions, private companies and NGOs) in addition to the migrants themselves, as individuals and NGOs. Consultations will also cover employers and unions.
Due for completion from December 07 to early 08
Outcome: Partnership approach (Government, employers, newcomers) to service provision and increased resources
Schools: up-skill parents and highlight integration issues
There is concern about children over 16 and 18+ students without English
Issues and challenges
These will probably resonate with other members states experiences:
Every four years the National Assessment of English Reading takes place. At each grade level, it has been found that pupils in disadvantaged schools perform less well than pupils in representative national sample by about two thirds of a standard deviation less at each grade level. They not only achieved lower mean scores but the percentage of those achieving lowest scores is substantially higher.
Low parental literacy levels and low levels of parental support are also frequently reported by principal teachers as obstacles to the teaching of reading.
Action:
[i] Particularly since late 1980s significant emphasis has been put on addressing educational inclusion issues. The approach has focused on identifying schools serving disadvantaged communities and targeting range of additional supports, providing further supports for vulnerable groups, legislative measures. A description of existing measures is available under the social inclusion section at HYPERLINK "http://www.education.ie" www.education.ie
[ii] In December 2003, the Educational Disadvantage Committee of the Department of Education and Science made a submission to the Minister entitled A More Integrated and Effective Delivery of School-Based Educational Inclusion Measures. This has lead to an action plan called DEIS Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools. The core elements of the action plan comprise a standardized system for identifying and regularly reviewing levels of disadvantage and a new school support programme. The support programme will comprise 600 primary schools (300 urban/ 300 rural) and 150 post-primary schools. The plan is to be implemented on a phased basis over five years and will involve an annual investment of ¬ 40million on full implementation. It also involves the creation of about 300 additional posts in system.
[iii] Development of pupil database enabling tracking of need across the educational system.
Recommendations for action to be considered:
Redressing literacy difficulties in areas of educational disadvantage through implementing strategies that extend beyond schools and DES i.e. greater integration between schools and other services, intensive family support programmes for very vulnerable families, greater availability of adult and family literacy programmes.
Greater specificity in NAPS targets i.e. 10 year target should be to reduce to between 14 15% the proportion of pupils in designated schools who score at or below the 10th percentile on a specified standardized test.
90+ minutes a day to be spent teaching English in schools with highest disadvantage and lowest achievement supported by school-wide focus on language and literacy.
Pre-service teacher education courses on teaching reading need great focus on needs of educationally disadvantaged pupils.
Teachers in designated schools to participate in intensive, ongoing, site-based professional development on the teaching of oral language, reading and writing. This should emphasise the processes underlying language and literacy.
Concerns about lack of connection between whole-school plans, teachers planning and observed classroom practice in this area. Significant minority of teachers may not feel empowered to consider fully the stages of development of pupils they teach. There is a need to adapt literacy programmes to match pupils needs and abilities to maximize childrens potential.
Using assessment data and tools to inform the development of suitable teaching programmes. Inspectorate evaluation found that most schools do not do so. Effective assessment needs to be viewed as a key professional skill of teachers.
What are the next steps or challenges regarding the place of assessment for the Irish education system in respect of newcomers/ migrants?
At primary level the debate regarding assessment has flourished. In meeting obligations under Irish law; there has grown a consensus around the need for purposeful and meaningful assessment. This was brought to the fore by the introduction of the revised primary curriculum 1999, and structures have been advanced to ensure that all parties within the education continuum are contributing to this debate. The key issue of providing parents and students with clear information about quality of learning in schools (incl. standardized testing results) has been addressed and has been formalized for primary schools. Issues remain about transfer of information from primary to post-primary. This question is not really to the fore and there is still no national system for transferral of information about students. But the acceptance of the importance of formative assessment in education and need for provision of clear assessment information to stakeholders are accepted and all are party to the discussion.
At post-primary level the question of review or reform of assessment policy is more challenging because of the dominance of the two formal examinations. A report by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) in 2003 concluded that the high stakes established leaving certificate examination had to change. Further to a consultation and review process, proposals have been made regarding the examination process in Ireland. These have focused stakeholders eyes upon promoting great alignment between the aims and objectives of the curriculum, the learning needs and learning processes of students and the examinations process itself. Portfolio and project work and a greater spread and variety in the assessment process rather than the exclusive use of terminal examination papers have been suggested and have, in some subjects, been implemented. A second assessment component in addition to the terminal examination is now part of the revised syllabuses and required for assessment in e.g. history, geography, music and art, and technological subjects construction studies and metalwork. The NCCA is currently reviewing senior cycle provision - in this review, core skills required across all subject areas have been identified already! This is a major step.
The Leaving Certificate Applied (LCA) offers an alternative assessment methodology to students this examination is a vehicle whereby entry to world of work or further education courses (vocational) rather than higher education is achieved. [The option of moving from further education to higher education courses is still retained]. Assessment in this mode of the Leaving Certificate Examination includes portfolio development, projects and revised examination language. It would be regarded as more student friendly. The whole issue is somewhat up for grabs at moment and monitoring the needs of newcomer students will be regarded as a variable in this debate. The possible extension of such methodologies to complement the terminal exam paper is still under discussion. Causes of concern would include pressure on State Examinations Commission to deliver on an expanded examination remit and issues regarding plagiarism of course work experienced in other jurisdictions.
There is a need to further encourage debate regarding assessment on an overall basis, so that a greater understanding of the importance of assessment and its functions can be debated among all stakeholders. Different stakeholders in education view assessment differently purposes of assessment are frequently interpreted according to the stakeholders needs or wants. It could be argued that there is a need to view assessment as it is as complex and multi-dimensional. Insufficient emphasis is placed on information for the learner, on communicating directly with the learner about what he/ she should do to improve. Such a priority is finding echo at political, school and inspectorate levels and it should infuse the desire to reform assessment modes at both primary and post-primary levels.
Peter Sieber (Switzerland): Developments or Changes Happening in Switzerland that Impact on Disadvantaged Children
Trois points concrets sont à signaler dans la politique développée depuis 2003 par la Conférence suisse des directeurs cantonaux de linstruction publique (CDIP) :
Les mesures prévues dans le plan daction de la CDIP après les discussions des résultats de PISA en Suisse.
Laccord intercantonal sur lharmonisation de la scolarité obligatoire (concordat HARMOS), qui prévoit notamment des mesures structurelles pour améliorer la situation des élèves à faibles performances scolaires.
Le projet HarmoS-Standards nationaux de formation, qui élabore un modèle de compétences et des standards de base pour la langue de scolarisation (ainsi que pour dautres disciplines scolaires).
1. Les mesures prévues dans le plan daction de la CDIP après la discussion des résultats de PISA 2000
Les conclusions des discussions des résultats de PISA 2000 en Suisse ont donné lieu à un plan daction (Mesures consécutives à PISA 2000 : plan daction. Berne : CDIP 2003). Largumentation introductive évoque deux faiblesses génétiques du système scolaire helvétique :
« - les élèves de milieux socioculturels plus défavorisés rencontrent souvent plus de difficultés dans leur parcours scolaire et dans laccès aux degrés subséquents;
- les élèves issus de cultures et de langues étrangères connaissent majoritairement davantage de difficultés dans lacquisition des apprentissages de base à lécole.» (CDIP 2003, p. 2).
Dans le plan daction de la CDIP, le champ daction 2 est placé sous le titre: « Encouragement des compétences linguistiques chez les enfants et les jeunes connaissant des conditions dapprentissage défavorables. » (p. 11-16). Les résultats de PISA en Suisse montrent très clairement les faits suivants : « Les élèves qui non seulement sont allophones, mais proviennent également de familles à faible niveau dinstruction ont donc des conditions dapprentissage particulièrement défavorables. La situation la plus extrême est celle où les élèves connaissant des conditions dapprentissage défavorables constituent une part relativement élevée de la classe. (
) Dans une classe constituée denviron 50% délèves connaissant des conditions dapprentissage défavorables, il convient dagir de toute urgence. Que ce soit au niveau de la classe ou de son environnement, un soutien adapté aux spécificités locales et sadressant également aux adultes sest révélé particulièrement efficace dans dautres pays. » (p. 11).
Les conclusions de la CDIP sont entre autres les suivantes :
« - Le plurilinguisme doit, dune manière générale, être encouragé. La priorité, cependant, est donnée à la maîtrise de la langue denseignement [la langue de scolarisation, P.S.]. Les efforts dintégration ne doivent pas se limiter au milieu scolaire, mais être soutenus par les politiques sociale et migratoire.
- Il faut assurer un dépistage précoce des enfants nécessitant un soutien particulier. La capacité des enseignantes et enseignants à poser un diagnostic en la matière doit expressément être développée, et ceux-ci doivent être soutenus dans lapplication de mesures appropriées. Ce soutien peut ou doit être donné aux enseignantes et enseignants dans le cadre de leur formation initiale et continue, et dans celui de la consultation.
- Lencouragement ciblé des compétences linguistiques des enfants et des jeunes connaissant des conditions dapprentissage défavorables est un des aspects fondamentaux de lintégration.
- Dans les écoles à exigences élémentaires, il convient délever les exigences en matière de compétences linguistiques. Les plans détudes et les moyens denseignement doivent aussi être développés en conséquence. » (p. 12).
On peut désormais prendre appui sur HARMOS afin de réaliser ces buts.
2. Le concordat HARMOS du 14 juin 2007
Le concordat HARMOS (Accord intercantonal sur lharmonisation de la scolarité obligatoire, CDIP 2007) prévoit certaines mesures structurelles pour améliorer la situation des élèves à faibles performances scolaires. Plusieurs articles de cet accord dharmonisation sont très importants en ce sens. Ils concernent la formation de base (art. 3), les standards de formation (art. 7) et laménagement de la journée scolaire (art. 11) :
« Art. 3 Format IJZ[\bgéÞÇÞ¼¯vaL=)'h± õh± õ5CJOJQJaJmH sH h± õh± õOJQJmH sH (h± õhJD¿CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h± õhH7CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "hH7CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "hJD¿CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h± õhJD¿CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h± õ5CJOJQJaJh`5
