Reflections on Linguistic and Cultural Innovation in Schools by Jane Spiro and Eowyn Crisfield

Introduction/Context

At our château INSET (March 2019), Eowyn Crisfield was invited as a keynote speaker to introduce what current research says about the importance of bilingualism, and she posed some questions to us regarding how we implement Le Rosey’s bilingual programme. Staff expressed strong interest in continuing to learn about this topic, particularly with regards to the responsibility of teachers of courses other than language and literature to support language development for all our students. Eowyn Crisfield is expected to lead a series of workshops by department in the spring of 2020, and it was felt that additional reading around her research would be useful. To that end, twenty teachers agreed to read and discuss the case studies that she published in 2017. Below is a summary of salient points/questions discussed on those dates.

Attendance to the meetings

Thursday 20^th June 2019, 15h30-16h30. Rob Gray, Laëtitia Peynon, Florence Conraux, Svetlana Petkova, Felipe Laurent, Arzu Carroll, Sharon Ebbs, David Bowman, Kirsten Pearcy

Friday 21^st June 2019, 08h30-09h30. Rob Gray, Stephanie Lin-Mayor, Annika Menzinky, Aleksandra Trotsenko, Jennifer Stenson, Andy Gray (Els Van Kerkhove emailed her comments)

I. On values

We recognise that one of the core values at Le Rosey is bilingualism through its EN/FR programme, which recognises and celebrates different cultural approaches to education. It was important, therefore, to place this sense of our bilingual identity under a microscope. In the text, the authors comment that “The case studies are built on an assumption of the value of bilingualism, exposure to multiple cultures and languages, and the empowerment of the first language.” (p. 6) These ideas echo on of our core values, as expressed in the school’s Codes. References to “A Swiss school with an international mission”, “human tolerance and respect”, “Many cultures, languages and religions… the enrichment that comes from knowing them demands an open mind, curiosity and a respect for differences” support our commitment bilingualism.

That being said, it is important to note that during Thursday’s discussion the participants raised questions regarding the status of French in our school programme, and pointed to the definition of “monoglossic” programmes found in the text:

“Monoglossic orientations about BE view languages as separate entities, whole in themselves… This is a viewpoint grounded mainly in a monolingual world view, where languages are something we learn, rather than something we do.” (p. 7)

The group on Friday did not raise the same question, rather pointing out that given the range of activities that involve using both French and English (essay and poetry competitions, theatre productions, sporting events, service projects, bilingual academic courses, concerts, assemblies, Journée de la Francophonie, etc.) we have ample evidence that we “do” both English and French.  Nevertheless, a majority felt that it would be beneficial to reflect on how French and English are taught, learnt, and used in our school context, in order to maximise students’ experience across languages. With regards to the discussion of language status raised in the text, colleagues commented that English seems to enjoy a higher status in the minds of the students, to the extent that teachers of French were shocked that in MT lessons francophone students will speak in English to each other. As this shift towards English is recent (less than 20 years), it is worth exploring how to promote raising the status of French at the school to support French-English bilingualism development.

II. On sequence/vertical articulation

One of the questions raised was whether we should address how French and English programmes are presented to students at different year levels. This also raised concerns about how best to support the “home language” development of our students, particularly in the Junior school: there is an interesting dynamic between the experience in the Juniors and the transition into the secondary school. Classes 9, 8, 7 have a focus on the development of French language. This is a strength for those who stay, who then move to a bilingual system where students can choose between English and French instruction. From Jenny’s informal interviews in the Junior school (see Appendix A), Juniors students do not find the programme in French daunting and they enjoy learning it, but they also recognise a personal preference for reading books in English. This could present a healthy balance, as described by Krashen’s studies on the benefits of reading for pleasure. This led to a discussion on the importance of MT support to continue to challenge students cognitively on non-language specific content. Teachers suggested that in the Junior school MT language classes be timetabled within the school day rather than after school. What happens in the Juniors creates tension because the younger students do not follow up with their MT in order to master content knowledge and meta-linguistic competence. (Rob mentioned that would be a goal, with the additional benefit that MT lessons would be part of their report and this would provide valuable data of their progress in certain cognitive activities.)

III. On mother tongue/home languages support

There was general consensus around the importance of MT support, in line with what the book’s authors propose. We know that Le Rosey provides more opportunities for students to progress in their home language, far beyond what the majority of international schools offer. However, there is also an awareness that many parents continue to promote a rejection of the home language when their child comes to Le Rosey. This led the members of the discussion to suggest that the school share more precise information on 1) current research on the importance of MT development at home and at school, 2) how Le Rosey aims to support that development, 3) tips on what families should do to support their student. Our aim should be cultural literacy for those students: the opportunity to reflect, to research, to complete their understanding of their identity and culture, even if this happens “at a distance” and through some of the academic opportunities at Le Rosey. Further, we must try to share the research that shows that students’ cognitive development is enhanced by their exposure and work with their mother tongue.

IV. On data and “Language Profiles”

Both groups had questions regarding how/where the school keeps track of students’ language profiles. The admissions team includes clear questions on the languages spoken at home and in previous schooling experiences. We discussed whether this information (which becomes a database accessible to Heads of academics) could become the first layer of information in tracking our students’ language development, that could then be expanded to include 1) the interview data obtained when students first meet heads of English and French departments, being placed in their respective language course; 2) progress made in MT, EN, FR and other languages during years 1-3 at Rosey; 3) progress made MT, EN, FR and other languages during years 4-7 at Rosey; 4) any other relevant information that accompanies a student’s language profile (perhaps a follow-up interview every 2-3 years?). A position of responsibility could be created to have a staff member dedicated to promoting language development at the school. They would then be responsible for reviewing, updating and disseminating information on students’ language progress, share current research on the topic, and organise activities that promote the development of identity language (described in the text), among other goals.

Suggested initiatives:

• read more world lit (in translation) across language courses (before bac level)
• shared texts in translation in English and French courses
• reflect on requirements for students to take additional courses in their least-strong language, and provide additional training for teachers to support those language learners to master content.
• training on translanguaging for teachers in the juniors
• promoting events in French
• Bookfête with world languages chapter ** already planned **
• teachers and students in the Juniors LOVE having the older MT students coming to the Juniors
• a “buddy” system to support new students with integration
• updating the reading material in the Juniors library to represent all the languages (could we ask students/parents to donate texts which they choose when they’re in their home country?)
• opportunities for students of the same MT to interact across age levels (CAS projects, but other activities/events as well)
• MT teachers collaborate with teachers of other subjects to help “unpack” a topic (maybe even before the unit begins)
• use content from “Insights for Teachers” (text, pp 192-195) as topics that teachers should reflect on
• celebrate “MT Day” as a yearly event (not necessarily on Feb 21^st) where MT students demonstrate their language and culture in various ways
• have a regular “MT Afternoon” where speakers of the same language are encouraged to come together and play/learn in their home language (it might be worth preparing the language profiles first to consider numbers and ages for this activity)
• Why not transform one of our buildings into an actual Language Learning Centre?

V. On the work in the classroom

One of the newest concepts proposed is that of the benefits of translanguaging—helping students to work across languages, which research shows supports the development in all the languages used. This is certainly an area to be explored further, probably with guided support from an expert such as Eowyn herself. We would need training for teachers to incorporate translanguaging activities/skills. Would the English department carry more of that responsibility? What would be expected of teachers in other subject? What is clear is that there are implications for what and how we teach: we must allow for opportunities that directly involve teaching language structures in different academic areas, but also allow for opportunities to compare structures in different languages and to discuss how academic language is used to communicate knowledge and understanding in the student’s languages of instruction. More explicitly, this discussion prompted teachers to wonder about the clarity of exam instructions, the use of “glossaries” during evaluations and other tools that in the long term may help or hinder language progress.

Questions for further reflection

1. What would be the best format to collect information about the language background of students (beyond the information admissions team is able to gather) and, perhaps more importantly, to map the progress for those students as they advance through the school?
2. Where would the student “language profiles” be housed, and who would have access to them? Who would be responsible for updating the information?
3. If the school developed as a bilingual programme with a majority of students coming from European backgrounds. Is it time to reconsider the design of the programme given that students come from such a range of backgrounds, and sometimes not so strong in either English or French?
4. Is there a way to measure how Le Rosey’s bilingual programme is perceived by students, staff and parents at the school? Should we do more to convey these goals, and to ensure greater buy-in, if the response is low?
5. Should we have a designated staff member (or team) lead initiatives around bilingualism at the school? (Student profiles, actitivies/events, curriculum programmimg, coordinating across school sections, etc.)
6. Is there a clear protocol to follow if a student needed some type of “language intervention”? It would be helpful to know what is the process to follow if we need to red flag someone or put in place a support structure.
7. How do we “rank” English-French bilingualism + MT level? Should we be satisfied with bilingualism that includes MT and either English or French?

(For colleagues) To read Jenny’s revealing individual interviews with students in the Junior School, please click below.

Linguistic profiles in the Juniors.June2019.JennyS.docx