Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
RELC Journal
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Policy for Language Education in England: Does Less Mean More?

Linda Thompson

University of Manchester, UK

This paper details major and significant developments in the teaching of English to pupils aged 5-16 years in the school system in England, the years of compulsory education.

To begin with definitions of terms. There are four aspects of language education provision that pertain in England:

1. the teaching of English as the mother tongue;

2. the teaching of English as an Additional Language (EAL);

3. the teaching of other languages: community (CL) and

4. modem foreign languages (MFL).

This paper addresses 1, 2 and 3.

Throughout the nomenclature reflects that of the public documents that have outlined the details of provision. It is hoped this reflects changing attitudes, policy and provision of the teaching of EMT, EAL and CLs within mainstream education in England.

There is no formal policy for language education in England (PLEE). Official views on the type and nature of language education, including which languages are to be taught, and by implication, the opposite, which are to be omitted from the official curriculum, are gleaned from a range of curriculum policy documents (listed in Appendix A). The absence of a formal language policy statement can be understood as a statement by omission. This paper will explore the implications of this absence and pose the question: does less policy lead to more language education?

RELC Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1, 83-103 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/003368820403500107


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?