Research
in English-only policies has been limited to classrooms (Auerbach, 1995) and on
English-only policy that is mandated by the national government form the top
down (Combs, et.al , 2011). The tendency of this research is to focus on global
issues such as immigration, globalization, and the economic workforce and to
overlook the complex relationship between English-only policy and the local
concerns. Therefore, there is a need to study English-only policies that are
created by the local communities themselves and to investigate the reasons for
crafting such policies.
In the Philippines, as in many
postcolonial countries, there has been a strong desire to learn English due to
globalization and to the opportunities attached to the language (Lin and
Martin, 2005). This leads to countries and their governments crafting polices
that promote the use of English for “effective acquisition”. However, in some
contexts, the schools themselves create these policies in respond to the
circumstances that these schools are in.
The purpose of this paper is to explore
the reasons of some schools in crafting and implementing English-only policies
for their own contexts. Ultimately, the paper argues that there is a need to
locally ground the investigation of these policies to uncover the local
discourses that have long been ‘silenced’ and ‘overshadowed’ by the global
discourses. It also poses a challenge to model-building in language policies
given that pre-existing frameworks in language policies do not account for the
practices of the school being studied. It should be noted that the main focus
of the paper is not so much to discuss the merits and demerits of the
Speaking-English Zones (SEZ) policy of the school being studied ; rather , the
intent of the study is to examine the
reasons behind the crafting and implementation of such policy and situate it in
the local context.
Theoretical Framework
Canagarajah (2005) argues for a
shift in the way knowledge is constructed traditionally. Knowledge construction
has been biased in that it puts so much premium on “[g]eneralization, and
systematization, and model-building [which] involve a certain amount of
abstraction that filters out the variability of experience in diverse contexts”
(p. 4-5). The more the scholars look for what is common among phenomena being
studied, the more one phenomenon becomes
“removed from its locality, the structure is reduced of its social and cultural
‘thickness’”. This renders the particulars in that locality as “unruly or
insignificant” (p. 5) while the generalizable become the dominant discourse and
are perceived “as universally relevant or applicable” (p. xiv). He adds that
this is not an innocent process but political in nature as one perspective that
shaped the interpretation and analysis of the phenomenon is that of the privileged
and the powerful. Necessarily, the
knowledge, practices, and perspectives of a particular local community have
been rendered “disempowered”.
As knowledge is narrowly constructed
under this traditional paradigm, Canagarajah (2005) argues for the “reclaiming
of a space for the local in knowledge construction activities” to reorientate
language studies. “A local grounding should become the primary and critical
force in the construction of contextually relevant knowledge if we are to
develop more plural discourses” (p. xiv). This reclaiming involves a
deconstructive and reconstructive project (p. 14). This deconstruction entails showing
the biased nature of dominant discourses toward western communities while investigating
the validity of dominant discourses in its context of origin. On the other
hand, reconstruction means considering how local knowledge is relevant for the
contemporary needs of the local community and of the changing social and
geopolitical domains.
Finally, Canagarajah clarified that
the ‘global’ and ‘local’ are terms which are relative to different contexts and
may take different forms. For some contexts, the local may refer to a classroom, to a minority
group, or to a community while the global may refer to something larger as the dominant
discourses and institutions. “ Whatever
the domain of discussion” scholars should “articulate the case of the local
before it gets silenced, distorted, or reproduced by the global” (2005, p.
xvi).
Methodology
The research context is a high
school department of a private university in a city in Western Mindanao,
Philippines. The school implements a bilingual education policy. The English
language is used as a medium of instruction for English, Mathematics, Science,
and Social Studies while the Filipino language is used for Filipino subject and
Physical Education (PE). Students are also expected to converse with the
teacher and with fellow students using the language in which the subject is
taught.
Four
major languages are known to be spoken by most of the students and staff,
namely English, Filipino, Visayan, and Chavacano and other local languages.
Students usually come from middle class families.
Interview is the main source of data
for this study. The interview lasted for one hour and thirteen minutes. The topics centered around language policies
in the given school, specifically on Speaking-English Zone (SEZ) Policy, the
reasons for its crafting and its benefits and harms on students and on teaching
and non-teaching staff as perceived by one high school teacher. The interview took
place in the teacher’s apartment on May 6, 2012, 9 p.m.
Anne (not her real name) was my respondent.
She has been an English teacher in the school for six years but had to study on
leave for her Master’s degree in English Language and Literature Teaching. She
has been carefully chosen to be interviewed for this study for three main reasons:
1) Her relatively long teaching experience in the school would add some
credibility and richness to her observations and narratives; 2) She has been
groomed to be the next Chair of the English department of the school which makes
her opinions more informed of the official stances and philosophy of the
institution and its administration as she deals with the administration more
than the teachers have; 3) More importantly, she was one of the main proponents
of SEZ policy.
I consciously considered some factors
which possibly affected the data from the interview. Her being a main proponent
of the policy is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is strategic because
she was able to discuss the policy with personal conviction and a sense of moral
obligation; it may also be a disadvantage as her position limits her to point
out the shortcomings and harms of the policy. Finally, she was my classmate and
board mate. Although this helped a lot in establishing the necessary rapport
between us in the whole interview, this power relationship possibly gave her
reservations with her responses knowing that I am usually perceived as critical
in our classes.
Although the interview provided telling
narratives and rich information about the policy, I recognize that the
methodology could have been improved had I conducted fieldwork and observation
in the given school, data collection methods which were not possible given time
and physical distance constraints.
Reasons for
implementing SEZ policy
Speaking-English Zones (SEZ) policy
is a language policy started in and initiated by the English department of the
school being studied. The policy mandates that students and teaching and
non-teaching staff of the school should speak in English when communicating
with anyone in some zones inside the campus, namely the classroom, school
offices, and the faculty room. They may only speak languages other than English
in the lobby, in the cafeteria, and in the school field. The policy has no
sanctions for violators.
The following were the reasons that led
to the school’s enforcing of the English-only policy. I indentified these from
the narratives that surfaced in the interview. Two of these are global dominant
discourses while the other three are local in nature. It is important to
investigate these reasons and uncover the discourses underlying them because
these are the very same reasons that are used by the school to justify the
policy and gather support from the stakeholders. If these policies are
scrutinized, all the stakeholders of the policy and future researchers will be
guided in assessing the principled and pragmatic justifications of the policy
and in seeking for alternatives if need be.
The first reason is a classic: The
school wants to increase spaces and opportunities for students and teaching and
non-teaching staff to practice using the English language inside the campus. This
is under the notion that practice in using the English language is a key to its
mastery and, under the conditions prior to the policy, practice does not happen
or is limited outside the school. According to Anne, half of her students speak
the vernacular at home. Even students who already speak English at home are still
encouraged as the kind of English at home is different from the English that
they practice in school in terms of the topic, the communicative situations,
and the people they speak with (i.e., only their parents and family members). The
policy, which would require students to transact in offices in English, is even
believed to prepare students for their future requirements (as interviewing city
government personnel in English would be one of the subject requirements) and
for their future real-world transactions in English such as being in a job
interview or transacting with these offices. Finally, Anne said that it is only
in school where students could practice English without being judged as “elite”
or “arrogant” by the people who are listening. The teaching and non-teaching
staff were also persuaded to support the policy. First, they were told that as
professionals they are expected to be good English speakers. It is a matter of
moral obligation as a professional to speak the English language fluently. Second,
as professionals they are to be the role models in using the language so
students follow their example. Finally, they were told that practicing English
would expand their opportunities especially if they decide to apply for job
opportunities in other schools.
Overall, because the necessary practice
in English outside the school is constrained, limited, and almost non-existent for students and the staff and practice inside
the school is beneficial, the English department saw the need to add to the
pre-existing mechanisms[i]
they are using to improve practice in using English through the policy.
The second reason has to do with the
school’s trademark in being an institution that produces good English speakers.
According to Anne, even in the
orientation program of the students in the beginning of the school year, it is
always emphasized that the school is known for its prestige in nurturing
students to be good English speakers which makes students duty-bound and
“motivated” (to use Anne’s word) to continue the tradition. She added that even
the parents of the students support the policy. It was not difficult for the
school to convince the parents because they themselves are informed and
well-aware that the trademark of the school is such. A lot of these parents are
also alumni of the school. They are said to be “happy” upon hearing their
children speak or try to speak in English at home.
Very much related with the second
reason, the reputation enables the school to compete with other private schools
in the city. This same trademark and excellence in using English was what gives
the school a cutting-edge over other competing private schools. Anne mentioned
that in the city each private school has its own niche. One specializes in
Science. Another boasts of its excellent Mathematics education. And for her, her
school has capitalized on its reputation for excellence in English to be able
to compete with those other schools as a good number of parents would really
want their children to have sharp English communication skills. Still on
competition, the policy was also formulated to keep up with another school
which already has an English-only policy in place. Anne was inside the premises
of another school falling in line to pay her niece’s tuition fee. Two things
caught her attention. First, she saw a very large banner which says “Speak
English”. Second, while falling in line at the cashier, she was fascinated by a
high school student who transacted with the cashier in plain English. The
cashier also talked with the student in pure English. These observations were
shared by Anne to her colleagues during a meeting of the English department.
She said that if this school already has a SEZ policy considering that that
school is not of the same level with her school, there really was no reason for
the school not to implement its own SEZ. “After all, it is our trademark”, she
added during the meeting.
The fourth reason seems to be the
most immediate concern of the school at the time before the formulation of the
policy. The policy was an answer to the recommendation of an accrediting body. Sometime
in 2007, the school was surveyed by the Philippine Accrediting Association of
Schools, Colleges, and Universities (PAASCU), “a service organization that
accredits academic programs which meet standards of quality education” among
private schools in the country (http://paascu.org.ph/home/?p=7). A survey is one of the mechanisms of the organization to see whether a member
institution lives up to the standards it sets for itself. After the survey, PAASCU
observed that some of the teachers lack the facility of the English language. And
so, the English department initiated the policy to be able to reflect in their
records that the school is taking concrete steps to satisfy the recommendations
in the time of the next survey of the accrediting body.
Analyzing the assumptions embedded in
each of the reasons discussed below is a task that goes beyond the scope of
this paper. However, I will attempt to underscore two major global discourses alongside
the three local discourses that I found prominent in the crafting and
implementation of the SEZ in the research context.
The first discourse is on the belief
that “the use or prohibition of the L1 is often framed in purely pedagogical
terms” (Auerbach, 1995, p. 2) and constant practice in using pure English leads
to proficiency. The English department of the school believes that language use
should be pure and that codeswitching and mixing are undesirable language behavior
while in reality most of the time “the languages in the everyday lives of
students and teachers both inside and outside of the classrooms do not exist in
neat, discrete categories but in fact are used in fluid, creative, intertwined
ways” (Lin and Martin, 2005, p. 10). This has been apparent in the way Anne
explains the policy to her students.
Insisting on using English in the ESL
classroom does not only result to low self-esteem of students but also slower
pace of second language acquisition (Auerbach, 1995). More importantly, the
policy and its proponents conceptualize language acquisition as just a matter
of practice, habit formation, cognition, and affect while ignoring “the
personal background of the learner” and “the larger social and political
contexts which it [learning] is situated” (Canagarajah, 1999, p. 15). Auerbach
(1995) believes that language use in the classroom is very much an ideological
issue, a notion that is also manifested , in this case, even outside the
classroom.
The second discourse is the strong
desire for English as a linguistic capital for success. This has been apparent in
the way the English Department explains the policy to the students and the
teachers. They tell students that once they master the English language they
will not find it hard to transact to the real world where the language is used
as medium of communication, say when transacting offices and being interviewed
for a job. Meanwhile, they also tell the teaching and non-teaching staff that
once they decide to seek for better opportunities in other private or public
high schools (which mirror the vulnerable state of workforce in some private
schools) and even outside the country they will need the English language to
have a fighting chance to be employed. Lin
calls this ‘the postcolonial puzzle’ describing the “postcolonial governments
and local communities in many postcolonial contexts today seem to desire for
English with such renewed and unashamed enthusiasm” (2005, p. 5). The
perception that English is an indispensable resource is “infused with a strong
desire for . . . future successful participation in the new global economic
order” (p. 3). This has been observed in many postcolonial countries such as
Hong Kong and Singapore and Malaysia which have recognized the need for English
under new forces of globalization.
But the most interesting part of the
data is the fact that some reasons of the implementation of the SEZ entail
local concerns. The policy was not just an endeavor of the school to equip its
students and staff with English for the workforce but also to strengthen its
trademark for excellence in English proficiency, to compete with other local
private schools which are also known to have their own niche, and to simply
comply with recommendations from an accrediting body.
There are two things that can be said
about this observation. First, this reflects the local social realities of the
school. Competition is really tight among private high schools in the Philippines,
not to mention the competition with public schools with relatively cheap
tuition fees if not for free. Among private schools, competition is really
tight. For these academic institutions, banking on what they offer to parents
and to students is one of the best ways to go to sustain their operations in
the face of anemic private donations and rising costs of operations. For this
particular school, their trademark in giving quality English language
instruction seems to be a potent magnet to entice their clients to enroll their
children to school, thus, keeping up with the competition. Complying with
accreditation recommendations also has to do with competition. Apart from
relying on trademarks, private schools also bank on the status and the rating
that accrediting bodies give to them to improve their marketability as high
status and rating means improving their chances of getting prestige, thereby, enticing
new clients and giving assurance to their current clients. Central to
accomplishing these aims is the SEZ policy.
The second thing about this is that,
although these concerns are local ones, they also contain traces of the discourses
that go beyond the local. After all, schools compete over students’ enrollment
and over parents’ trust and confidence because they know that these parents
want the best skills for their children to ultimately prepare them for
employment and economic success in the national and global market.
The Language
Policy-Making Practices of the local
Given the “need” to improve the
English language proficiency of students and teachers, the English Department
needed to think of ways to respond to these problems. At the forefront of the
genesis of the Speaking-English Zones, the department conducted series of
meetings where narratives above are shared and decided to craft and implement
the policy. The policy easily earned the
nod of the administration since it aims at responding to the problems of the
school. The policy and its aims were then explained and rationalized to the
students and parents during orientation program and to the teaching and
non-teaching staff assemblies.
The school mobilized its resources
and utilized avenues which can convey discourses that support the
implementation of the policy. The use of orientation program as a potent avenue
seems to be a powerful strategy for the school to accomplish this. The
orientation program is the first encounter of the incoming students and their
parents to the school. It is where the school’s vision-mission were spelled out
so they know what values, principles, and visions the school has. Integrating
the rationalization of the SEZ in the orientation programs makes it appear that
the school indoctrinates the students and parents that English language
proficiency is indeed a reasonable expectation of the students. It is natural
for the school to demand this from the students if the school has to be
faithful to its tradition and if the student is to be made worthy to be a part
of the school community.
At this point, it should be noted
here that the English department of the school was key to the crafting and
implementation of the SEZ policy. The department really took the initiative to
propose the policy to the administration which the latter readily approved as
the policy is consistent with its interests. The department also spearheaded
with explaining to the students and to the teaching and non-teaching staff the
validity if the policy to gather support and secure their consent. Therefore,
what we have is a focused look at the language policy processes inside a school
where interactions among the English department, the administration, and the
students and staff unfold.
It is interesting to note that the
way the school creates language policies is a departure from, or better yet, an
extension to the pre-existing theoretical frameworks on language policy. Because
the policy originated from the local context itself, Hornberger and Ricento’s (1996)
‘Language Policy and Planning (LPP) Onion’ is watered down as the framework already assumes that all
language policies are from the national level down to the individual. What the
local practice shows is that the English department, an agency which is not necessarily
from the top, started the whole LPP process and became the forerunner in the
implementation of the policy. McCarthy’s (2011) macro, meso, micro levels of
LPP is also insufficient to explain this. Although the meso level accounts for
the local communities of practice, it does not provide the frames to look
closely at how schools as a local community of practice go through the process
of language policy making. At this point, we need more research that look into
specific LPP practices of local communities and generate framework that would
explain the complex nature of the LPP process.
Conclusion
Although the language policy-making
practices of the school might be far from ideal, there is still a value in investigating
how a language policy comes about and for what reasons they are implemented. It
is in this local grounding of the Speaking-English Zone (SEZ) policy that the
school’s decision to implement the policy is socially situated given the
balancing act that it needs to do with the global and the local pressures and
realities it has to confront.
References
Auerbach,
E. (2003). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in pedagogical
choices. In Medium of instruction
policies: which agenda? Whose agenda? Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Publishers.
Canagarajah,
A.S. (Ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum publishers.
Lin,
A., & Martin, P.W. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonisation, globalisation:
language-in-education policy and practice. Clevedon; Buffalo; Toronto:
Multilingual Matters.
Ricento,
T., & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: language planning and
policy and the ELT professional. TESOL
Quarterly, 30 (3), 401-427.
[i] Prior to the Speak-English policy, the
English department already has mechanism in place to improve practice in using
the English language namely posting of information sheets of grammar points and
interesting trivia about English on a bulletin board on a weekly basis. The staffs
of the school are also given free English grammar review lessons. Thus, the
policy is seen as a reinforcement.
