Committee for Linguistics in Education (CLIE)

Committee for Linguistics in Education (CLIE) Meeting 110 1.30 – 4.45, Friday 15th May 2015 King's College London, Department of Education & Professional Studies,

Waterloo Campus, Franklin Wilkins Building (Waterloo Bridge Wing)

Draft Minutes

1. Opening and apologies

Present: Esther Daborn (BAAL), Vicky Gough (BC), Terry Lamb (co-opted), Urszula Clark (BAAL), Catherine Walter (co-opted), Emma Marsden (BAAL), Naeema Hann (NATECLA), Neil Sheldon (co-opted), Jeannette Sakel (LAGB), Catherine Wallace (BAAL), Karine Harrington (ALL), Jonnie Robinson (BL), Willem Hollmann (LAGB)

Apologies: Paul Clayton (NATE), Charlotte Franson (NALDIC), Dick Hudson (LAGB), Graeme Trousdale (LAGB)

2. Minutes of CLIE 109

These were approved with a minor change to 7.2, contributed by CF via email

3. Matters arising

3.1 WBH/ED still to upload the new terms of reference to the website

3.2 Following 4.2.1 of the minutes of CLIE 109, there was some discussion of language testing member. There is no UK association but one may be set up in future. ED has emailed the BAAL testing for information about this but has not had a response. WBH spoke to Luke Harding (Lancaster University), who is a member of the European association, and who indicated that there is a desire among colleagues in Britain to set up a national association. TL has connections with ELTA and EALTA and suggested he could contact them to ask whether someone might wish to join. TL also suggested that one of the European associations has a SIG that is interested in classroom teaching. 3.3 Regarding 4.2.2 of the minutes of CLIE 109, it was decided that concerning possible DfE representation it would be best to wait a little longer as the general election has only just taken place.

3.4 Re 4.2.4, ED had not been able to follow up the possibility of representation from UCML and/or UEE . But UC had contacted Fiona Douglas from UEE, and she would be interested in representing UEE. Although UEE represents only 30 institutions it is still better than nothing. If UEE cannot fund regular attendance then we could perhaps invite her as a visiting speaker. Action UC: discuss membership in more detail with Fiona Douglas. EM will pursue a list of possible contacts in UCML. Action EM: contact UCML in this relation

3.5 Re 4.2.5, UKLA representative Sue Ellis hasn’t been able to attend a number meetings. UKLA does not fund attendance at CLiE, so it is only possible to cover expenses if there is another meeting in London. Our recent project involving ALL/NATE could benefit from UKLA input. Perhaps Henrietta Dombey (UKLA)could step in, as she is in Brighton and so travelling may be easier. Action WBH: contact Henrietta Dombey to see if she would represent UKLA

3.6 Re 4.2.6, Paul Clayton was going to represent NATE but then said he couldn’t come this time. Action ED/WBH: look into approaching another NATE member

3.7 Re 5: the ALL/NATE meeting took place on 6th March in York; see further item 5, below

3.8 Re 6: in the absence of DH it was not clear what has been done in terms of raising awareness of the glossary

3.9 Re 7.3, CWalter reported on Premier Skills, a joint British Council and Premier League project . The project has a website which uses Premier League football as a vehicle to promote English language learning: premierskillsenglish.britishcouncil.org CWalter had talked to Anna Searle (head of English at BC) about the question as to whether something could be done to promote and enhance languages more generally. KH said that Arsenal has a programme called Double Club that does this. VG stated that individual clubs have done small things locally (supported by the Head of Education of the Premier League, who claims that English footballers are not very exportable because they do not speak any additional language(s)), but that there is nothing substantial. CWalter suggests that it might be worth approaching other clubs with the Arsenal model, and other sports could be explored as well, such as rugby. Anna Searle had said that the existing apps could be modified for other languages; VG signalled that the difficulty here is investment. EM mentioned that the British Academy has money for projects like this. TL provided some more background about Double Club, confirming that attempts to spread it to other clubs (supported by Arsene Wenger) have not been very successful. CWalter’s idea would be to make a promotional film, which VG said she could talk to the Head of Education of PL about (Action VG: discuss this with the Head of Education of PL), asking him what the PL thinks might be the next step. CWalter also mentioned the ‘Connecting Classrooms’ programme which might be linked to the theme of football, but VG said this programme is only for certain countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. 4. Membership

ED welcomed new members (CWallace, NH, KH) and invited them to introduce themselves. ED also mentioned that Gee Macrory will be replacing her as a BAAL rep from CLIE 111 in November 2015.

5. NATE/ALL meeting report

In the absence of DH, EM reported on this. EM started by providing some background about the ALL/NATE meeting: DH’s observation about the perceived lack of collaboration between English and foreign languages teachers. Present at the meeting (6 Mar) were Liz Black (ALL), Paul Clayton (NATE), Steven Fawkes (ALL), EM, ED and DH. One conclusion reached in the meeting was that the perceived gap is real and that it would be useful to address it; another conclusion was that academic support for the suggestions would be very useful or indeed crucial if policy makers are to be impressed; this is where CLIE could play a role. (In this connection, CWalter mentioned recent research showing how learning a second language can improve your first language by Macaro & Murphy (see http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/research/applied-linguistics/research/impact-of-second- language-learning/) and an overview by Hall & Cook in Language Teaching 2012.)

The meeting resulted in two concrete outcomes. First, there will be an attempt to organise a British Academy event relating to the HEI sector. Second, an article will be produced for the NATE and ALL magazines, whose editors have already agreed. The authorship is still being negotiated, but Steven Fawkes has made suggestions as to the content of the article.

ED also mentioned that once the article is written and the focus is clearer, CLIE could help think about helping to make a funding bid for a project on this by supporting evidence of practice with evidence from research.

TL mentioned a Council of Europe/ECML programme about how a country’s majority language or language of schooling can be enhanced by bringing in another language. Pointing out that the first phase of the project was called Marille, and the second phase Maledive, TL suggested that we look at the ECML resources (see http://marille.ecml.at/ and http://maledive.ecml.at/Home/Projectdetails/tabid/3481/Default.aspx). ED suggested that it would be useful to try to set up research into the efficacy of the ‘discovering languages’project of Peter Downes. (The programme to some extent has a language awareness angle; cf. Eric Hawkins).

Following the report on the NATE/ALL meeting, the Committee discussed various transition issues. ED mentioned that it emerged from the meeting that KAL is easier to discuss at primary level, where one teacher is responsible for all teaching; at secondary level it is much harder for English teachers to achieve this because the children are spread across different teachers. ED also mentioned that an area of concern to ALL is the lack of assessment at the end of primary for foreign languages, leaving the teachers without any clear goals.

6. Reports

6.1. British Council report on Language Trends

VG reported that LT is an annual survey, England-wide, on the state of language teaching in primary and secondary teaching. One issue that has emerged is the lack of communication between primary and secondary teachers, with secondary teachers being skeptical about primary language teaching. Another issue is that language teaching does not happen in many schools whilst SATs are being prepared for. A further problem is the lack of engagement of KS3 pupils from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds; schools are hesitant to enter the entire the whole cohort for languages because it tends to make them look bad on RAISEonline so they only enter the top students. Language A-levels are seen as hard, which has a negative impact on popularity.

NS commented that the statistical analysis – in particular, the basic concepts of significance and confidence – underlying RAISEonline is very poor (e.g. because the sample is not random). TL noted that more awareness of this should be raised.

TL provided some historical background: in 2009 language teaching at primary level was significantly better; the government dismantled this in 2010 and the figure of 99% that we are at now is actually far worse as language is not taught properly anymore.

CWalter observed that the problem extends to HE, where language degrees in the UK are not taught in the language in question, the focus being on literature and culture instead; this may be part of the problem due to wash back to schools.

The Committee’s general discussion about the state of languages in English schools resulted in very negative conclusions. VG mentioned assessment on the Progress 8 school performance measure, in which languages will not need to be included. John Hopper (DfE, lead in qualifications and curriculum in languages) said that the future of EBacc is unclear. TL suggested that we might invite John Hopper in about a year’s time, when he will be in a position to discuss the situation and perspective of the DfE.

6.2 UKLO

NS started by providing some background about the Olympiad. This year the competition was open to KS2-5, the ‘breakthrough’ level (KS2) being completely new this year. Official participation was 2,200 but many teachers use the resources in informal ways; for example, using a puzzle as the basis for a lesson plan. To support these more informal types of engagement with UKLO, this year a bank of starter problems was developed. 1,400 participants entered at advanced level; 16 students made it to Round 2, of which 1 participant was blind. Several former competitors helped out this year, and two of them continue to support the blind participant (who did not make it to the teams following round 2). At the IOL in Bulgaria we were represented by 2 teams of 4 students, all from independent schools. 20 maintained school students who can enter the competition again have been invited for a residential course at Corpus Oxford. The background of these students is interesting, as not all of them are taking language(s) A-levels.

6.3 NATECLA

NH reported on 2 major debates: one on funding teachers of ESOL, which is being withdrawn and moved to functional skills, and one on testing as gate-keeping, where the question is which organisations are legally allowed to administer IELTS tests. NH also mentioned that the annual NATECLA conference will take place on 26-27 June.

6.4 The British Library

JR mentioned the BL Discovering Literature web resource (see http://www.bl.uk/romantics-and- victorians). It is hoped that from September a Discovering English Language web resource will receive funding. JR also mentioned that on 29th June English Grammar Day will be organised again (started last year by DH), with Jenny Cheshire as one of the keynote speakers.

7. Any other business

7.1 NS reported on an email he has received from Alexander Borovic, a mathematician and logician, about a project to teach logic, probability and linguistics to children 11-14 years old in communities and countries where radicalisation may happen. NS invited CLIE members who wish to be involved in the project to contact him. ED suggested that if it comes off the ground then NS may wish to put this on the agenda for the next meeting.

7.2 Initiated by ED there was a discussion on the status, purpose, achievements and (near) future of CLIE. In this context CWallace raised the question as to whether the main function of the Committee is to bring people together from different backgrounds and exchange ideas or whether can also be used as a lobbying group for steering language teaching policy. CWalter suggested that CLIE is a bridge between academics and pedagogic community, between English as a first language and ESOL plus also foreign languages, a bridge between teachers in primary and secondary sectors, and a bridge between our communities of practice and policy (although the impact may be insignificant). JR suggested that landmark achievements recently are UKLO, FLENG (NATE/ALL), and added that rather than a lobby group CLIE is conduit for sensitive professional responses to educational policy, a description that met with general approval.

There being no other business the meeting closed a 4.45pm