Modern Foreign Languages as an Inclusive Learning Opportunity: Changing Policies, Practices and Identities in the Languages Classroom

Jane Jones

Introduction

There has been a considerable change in attitude and in classroom practices regarding the teaching of modern foreign languages (MFL) to children with special educational needs, also referred to as children with learning differences and those with additional support needs (ASN). Where exclusion for many from the opportunity to embrace fully a language learning experience as part of regular school curriculum provision was widespread in previous decades, nearly all children have been included in language learning at some stage of their school career in recent times. This change has taken place in the light of policy frameworks of inclusion, especially with mainstreamed education as the status quo, and with concurrent and interlinked changes in approaches to, and views about, teaching and learning of MFL. Recent developments in MFL classrooms have proffered potential inclusive scenarios of many kinds. To explore these developments, this chapter is divided into two sections.

Section 1:

• Identifies briefly important policy changes concerning inclusive practice that provide a backdrop for such developments.

• Highlights key changes in approaches to languages teaching, learning and assessment, and the impact for children with learning differences.

Section 2:

• Proposes a language classroom collaborative learning community emphasising personalised learning that would include digital technologies, and formative assessment as a way to transform the learning experience for learners.

• Suggests redefining the language learner's identity as empowered and with agency.

In the conclusion, I discuss teacher training needs and the benefits of working in partnership, and I emphasise the need for leadership to support a whole school structure of effective provision for inclusive practices. I stress the importance of the wider goals of MFL learning for learners with special educational needs (SEN) and the need to monitor and research critically developing practice in MFL

As part of a learning conversation about issues in this chapter in order to provide concrete examples for points raised, I incorporate at all junctures the views and suggestions of three MFL teachers selected for their avowed commitment to inclusion and MFL, their insights into the need to personalise learning and for the creative strategies they have developed for personalised learning. The term 'SEN' is ubiquitous in the English context as can be seen in the verbatim comments from the teachers, and also in European Union documentation cited.

Section 1

Policies of inclusion

The 'Education for all' (EFA) agenda asserted in the 1990 Jomtien Declaration provides an important backdrop to understand the approach to inclusion in the UK. EFA aims to support all children everywhere in accessing good quality, basic education in an environment where they feel safe and welcome. The EFA inclusive philosophy has framed international and national policy approaches to education, including the Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practices in Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994). Within this framework, it is understood that the education of all children should take place within the mainstream where all learners with their diversity of needs, experiences and backgrounds, come together, not just within the four walls, but in the 'putting into action values based on equity, entitlement, community, participation and respect for diversity' (Booth et al., 2003: 1), thus breaking down barriers to learning and participation.

The inclusive approach to education that is dominant in mainstream schools today has its origins in the Warnock Review of Special Education (1978), the ensuing Education Act of 1981 and the fundamental changes consequent to this Act, based on the concept of integration of learners with SEN into mainstream schools and social inclusion. The changes have been reflected in subsequent policy and initiatives that have sought to promote education for all. The National Curriculum has been central to this aim in addressing broader concerns of inclusion, for the 'gifted and talented', those for whom English is an additional language and those with SEN inter alia. The revised National Curriculum (QCA, 2007), emphasised personal development and well-being, and encouraged learners to become enterprising and responsible citizens as part of the broader concerns for the development of the whole child, physically, mentally and socially. These reflect the objectives of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Teaching, Learning and Assessment (CEFR) that provide a framework for all languages teachers across Europe, aiming to: 'promote mutual understanding and to learn respect for identities and cultural diversity through more effective communication' (2001: 3), and emphasising the scope of the value of MFL learning. One teacher describes the scope thus: 'MFL is an inclusive subject as it appeals to multiple skills – it is NOT exclusively about writing, speaking. It improves students' abilities to develop social skills, comprehend others, look beyond the written word in front of them.' It is a view that resonates with McColl's (2005) perspective on language learning, inclusion and citizenship.

Change in MFL teaching, learning and assessment policy and practice

The teaching and learning of MFL extends far beyond the mere act of learning language, indeed, the centrality of language learning to promote social cohesion according to the CEFR (2001) and to build citizenship is strongly expressed in the executive summary of the report entitled 'Languages for Life: A Strategy for England', which states: '... language competence and intercultural understanding are not optional extras; they are an essential part of being a citizen' (Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2002: 5).

This strategy has had considerable influence on the way MFL has been justified as part of the essential school curriculum and MFL has been seen as central to the development of a wide range of social and cultural as well as linguistic skills. The more inclusive approach to education in general, that began to develop at the end of the 1980s, was potentially very helpful in promoting foreign language learning, when the study of modern foreign language became a statutory entitlement following the implementation of the National Curriculum (NC) and the introduction of the programmes of study for Key Stage 3 (learners aged 11–14) in 1992 and Key Stage 4 (learners aged 14–16) in 1995. The National Curriculum has subsequently experienced changes and refinements over the last 20 years, critically with MFL at Key Stage 4 designated as no longer compulsory in 2004, and the introduction of a revised and more flexible National Curriculum in 2007 (QCA, 2007). Nonetheless, the introduction of a statutory requirement to study MFL was a significant measure. It confirmed the importance of the study of MFL in schools in England and Wales, by including MFL as a foundation subject and defining it as the right of every pupil. This represented a considerable shift from a position earlier in the 20th century, when the learning of any foreign language was reserved for a small élite (Anderson, 2000). The current approach to the teaching of MFL in the UK, as reflected in the revised National Curriculum (QCA, 2007) is understood as an inclusive one, promoting the study of languages for all. The study of a foreign language continues to be compulsory at Key Stage 3 for all learners under the revised National Curriculum (QCA, 2007) and is very likely to become compulsory at Key Stage 2 in the top end of the primary school for pupils aged 7–11. However, at Key Stage 4, MFL is likely to remain an 'entitlement' subject, that learners may choose to study as a GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) option. The GCSE examination has provided differentiated options for entry level, higher and foundation, assessment in the four skills and a wide variety of tasks. The National Curriculum approach is supported by the aims of the CEFR (2001: 3) in seeking to:

Promote, encourage and support the efforts of teachers and learners at all levels to apply in their own situation the principles of the construction of language learning systems ... and promote research and develop programmes of learning to the introduction, at all levels, of methods and materials best suited to enabling different classes and types of student to acquire a communicative proficiency appropriate to their specific need.

In very recent years, and in the light of alarming 'drop-out rates' from languages (CfBT, 2012), the stance schools have adopted towards entitlement has been monitored by the inspection body OFSTED. The inclusion of children in the study of MFL, while responding to an undeniable right to be involved in the wider agenda of foreign language study, has put considerable pressure on teachers (Hargreaves, 1994), who have, at the same time, to take into account the standards agenda and meet curriculum targets (MacBeath et al., 2006). It has been found by researchers, such as Florian and Rouse (2001), that these conflicting pressures are influential in shaping teachers' attitudes to learning differences, and there remains some tension between the desire to provide inclusive education and the ability to provide effective support for all learners, some of whom may have a range of very specific needs requiring specialist tuition. Dyson (2001: 25) writes that while in practice, all children follow a common National Curriculum within common schools and are taught using widely accepted pedagogic practices, at the same time it needs to be recognised that all learners are different in that they have diverse learning styles and needs. In order to meet the needs created by these differences, schools respond by varying the teaching groupings, varying the teaching methodology and, to some degree, the content of the common curriculum. Dyson stresses the dilemma that this creates for schools and policy makers, in the struggle to 'reconcile the dual imperatives of commonality and difference' (ibid). Richardson (2011: 27), echoing the views of Warnock, argues that: 'blanket acceptance of an inclusion model, that suggests "a one size fits all" approach to schooling, is unsupportable and far from a sustainable solution'.

MFL in the curriculum

After the Education Act of 1944 (The 1944 (Butler) Act) establishing secondary education for all and a tripartite provision of grammar, technical and secondary modern schools, MFL came within the scope of more children. This was more prevalent in the grammar schools and, indeed, HMI (Department of Education and Science (DES), 1977: 4) reported on the restriction of MFL to 'perhaps 60–80 per cent of the pupils'. With the advent of comprehensive reorganisation of schools, languages became increasingly politicised and began to be considered an entitlement of all children as part of the increasing equal opportunities debate and aforementioned policy shifts (Hodgkinson & Vickerman, 2009). The then Inner London Education Authority, the ILEA, in the 1970s, for example, disseminated a booklet entitled 'French for us all? Why not?' (1977) written by a group of MFL teachers, and the 'Languages for all' policy was implemented in London schools with some considerable success. A high level of accompanying training and resourcing that included considerable investment in technology, was made available. Technology, aspects of which are proposed as powerful tools to support learners and MFL learning in this volume, was thus not lacking in language learning (indeed the specialist MFL journal of the time was entitled 'The Audio-Visual Language Learning Journal'), with language teachers making use of, for example, large reel to reel tape recorders, slide carousels and language laboratories. For those of us teaching at the time, it seemed very avant-garde and we believed the multi-sensory aspects of the approaches helped to create a more inclusive learning environment in supporting a wider range of learning styles. With training and resources, teachers became exponentially committed to the right of children with learning differences to engage in language learning. One teacher illustrates this view:

By and large, I can think of very few circumstances when MFL teaching would not be possible and to the advantage of the student. I have worked in a comprehensive environment for many years now and most students have been able to follow MFL lessons or at least MFL-based activities. One of the reasons I am in favour of MFL for students is simply to follow the principle of inclusion as far as possible and not take SEN students out of lessons within a school environment. This means they can stay part of the school/class/form community.

Towards a communicative approach

Language teaching methods have changed over the years, not just in response to the inclusion agenda but also to developments in education systems at large, changes in society, the demands of the global economy and widening participation. Ideas about teaching and learning generally are products of their times and as Mitchell writes (1994), bringing in comprehensive education in the 1970s led to the teaching of a foreign language to almost all children, for the first time, for at least the first stage of secondary education. She associates a shift towards the communicative approach with a 'broadening of the "market" for foreign languages [that] created pressure for change in teaching methods and curricula, to suit the needs of non-traditional groups of learning (1994: 33)'. However, Mitchell (1994: 37) asserts that the rise of the communicative approach was not simply a reaction to the recognition of the inadequacies of grammar/translation and structural approaches, but new thinking and linguistic influences in formulating: 'a new expanded definition of what it means to "know" a language, on the one hand, and new ways of defining the content and goals of language syllabuses on the other hand', (see, for example, Mitchell & Myles, 1998).

In a critical review of language teaching trends, Klapper (2003), discussing communicative language teaching (CLT), suggests that a 'weak' version of CLT predominates in language classrooms, characterised by structured tasks, controlled practice and a gradual build-up towards stated objectives. The general claims of the approach include a focus on learner activity, all four skills but prioritise speaking, pupil as well as teacher target language use, authentic materials, tolerance of error and using language for real communicative purposes in collaborative scenarios inter alia. These signal benefits and options for a wide spectrum of learners, although Mitchell and Myles (1998: 195) warn that there is 'no best method' that will apply 'at all times and in all situations with every type of learner'. Nevertheless, many language teachers claim this is their preferred approach (and my 40 years of observing in language classrooms bear this out), interpreting it in a multiplicity of ways, in the belief that the flexiblity of the approach caters best for the needs of mixed ability classes.

As with all initiatives, the best intentions and planning for inclusive practice are, however, sometimes thwarted depending on factors relating to class size, the resources available and level of support needed. In the past, MFL examination provision at 16+ was often limited in restricting the language offer to French only (no 2nd FL offer), or to a European Studies type course (with minimal language content) or to Short Courses at GCSE that put a cap on possible achievable grade. The previous policy of 'disapplication' for some pupils from MFL study and examination also excluded some learners from continuing their language study (see Chapter 4 for some examples of cases of disapplication).

Nowadays, provision is much more equal and versions of CLT prevail, but the interpretation of the communicative approach as largely oral has led to perhaps unintended consequences of 'closing down' options once again in marginalising reading and writing, especially for learners with SEN. It is not uncommon to hear languages teachers say things such as: 'It's mainly speaking, no writing', or 'We don't do grammar with that group', thereby, in a sense, making decisions that 'disapply' certain children from developing some competence in some of the four skills. It may be that we do a disservice to both the written word and to grammar, albeit topics of endless contestation in the MFL community, as well as underestimating the learners' capability to function in all four skills.