[By Ann Williams, in David Britain (ed.) 2007 Language in the British Isles (2nd edition) (Cambridge University Press), pp. 401-16.]
Non-standard English and Education
Introduction
The twenty years since the first edition of ‘Language in the British Isles’ have seen far–reaching changes in many spheres of life in Britain. One of the most fundamental has been the introduction, for the first time in Britain, of a National Curriculum to be followed by all children in state schools. The motivation for the initiative has been attributed variously to the need to improve educational standards, to promote equality of opportunity, to impose cultural unity on an increasingly diverse nation, or to attempt to return to the values and traditions of the past (see Cameron & Bourne 1988 for full discussion). The core subject of the new curriculum as conceived by the Conservative government of the time, was to be the English language, and in particular Standard English.
Standard English (SE) is a social dialect, generally defined as ‘a set of grammatical and lexical forms typically used in speech and writing by educated native speakers’ (Trudgill 1984: 32). While there are no linguistic grounds for maintaining that it is superior to other dialects of English (Trudgill passim), it is nevertheless the ‘prestige’ variety, widely used in education, in the media and in almost all forms of writing (although in recent years Scottish and Caribbean writers have started to publish works in non-standard vernaculars[1]). In spite of its high status, research suggests that Standard English is the home dialect of approximately 15% of the population of UK (Trudgill 1999). It is estimated that between 9% and 12% of the population speak Standard English with a regional accent, while RP (Received Pronunciation), the prestigious accent associated with the aristocracy and those who have received a public school[2] education, is the native accent of only 3% of the UK population (Trudgill and Cheshire 1999).
These figures would suggest that the majority of English speakers in Britain, grow up speaking some form of a non-standard (NS) dialect with a regional accent. Numerous studies carried out since the 1970s (Macaulay 1977, Trudgill 1974) have shown a clear correlation between the number and variety of NS features a speaker uses and social class, with speakers at the lower end of the socio-economic scale using a higher proportion of NS regional features. Most working class children therefore start school speaking a dialect other than standard English. In spite of the efforts of linguists to educate the public about the regular, rule-governed nature of NS dialects, the view that such dialects are inferior and full of errors, ‘bad’ or ‘incorrect’ English still prevails, even among some speakers themselves. The role that Standard English has traditionally played in education, in literature and in the media on the other hand, means that it is often considered to be a linguistically superior variety and that speakers of SE speak ‘good’ or ‘correct’ English. It is this conflict between the populist view of dialects on the one hand and expertise based on linguistic analysis on the other, that has characterised the curriculum debates on English over the last 15 years.
In the first section we will trace the position of NS dialects in the successive versions of the National Curriculum and in Part 2 we will consider the educational implications for children who speak a NS dialect at home and in their community.
Background
The relationship between Standard English, non-standard dialects and education has never been straightforward. With the introduction of Universal Elementary Education in Britain in the 1870s, the variety of English required and rewarded in British schools was Standard British English. Non-standard dialects had no place in the education system as the following statements from early publications on the teaching of English so emphatically stated:
It is the business of the elementary school to teach all its pupils who either speak a definite dialect or whose speech is disfigured by vulgarisms, to speak standard English and to speak it clearly and with expression.
Newbolt Report 1921 p. 6
The elementary school child begins his education in a state of disease and it is the business of the teacher to purify and disinfect that language.
English Association pamphlet 1923
Attitudes such as these remained virtually unchallenged until the 1960s when a number of factors which included the switch from selective to comprehensive secondary schooling, the arrival in schools of children who spoke dialects of English originating outside the UK or whose mother tongue was not English, combined with a move towards a child–centred approach to teaching, brought about changes in educational thinking. Freed from the shackles of a rigidly prescribed eleven plus examination syllabus[3], primary teachers were free to experiment. Creative writing became an important part of the syllabus and children were encouraged to write in an imaginative and uninhibited manner. The teaching of formal, traditional grammar (and in some cases spelling) was dropped in the belief that it might induce boredom and damage creativity and still be unsuccessful. Contemporary educationists such as David Holbrook believed that ‘civilisation begins anew in every child’ and the culture, skills and language that each child brought to school were considered to be at the heart of all teaching and learning. The use of languages and dialects other than SE in school was sanctioned by the Bullock Report, ‘A Language for Life’, in the much quoted words ‘no child should be expected to cast off the language and culture of the home as he crosses the school threshold’ (DES 1975).
For some years the status of NS dialects in the education system was unclear. Although the use of NS varieties in speech and writing was promoted by some educationists (Richmond 1979) and strongly supported by linguists such as Trudgill (1975), Cheshire (1982b), and Edwards (1983), educational guidelines on the subject were somewhat inconsistent and what happened in practice was not clear. For example there appeared to be no consensus on how to deal with NS dialects in school work. In a study of teachers in Reading, Williams (1994b) found considerable inter-teacher variation in the ‘correction’ of NS dialect forms in writing, with the percentage of corrections ranging from 9.7% to 64% per teacher. Studdert and Wiles (1982) drew attention to the lack of clear policies:
Some schools may accept, even encourage the use of dialect in speech but have a school language policy which urges the use of standard English in writing. It is not unknown for state schools to state that they will not display writing in dialect on the classroom walls. Other schools may even encourage the use of dialect in writing particularly for dialogue or perhaps poetry. What teachers find less acceptable is the combination of the two perhaps because it is difficult to respond to: Is it right or wrong? (cited in Edwards 1983 p. 121)
The National Curriculum: Kingman and Cox
This ‘softening’ of attitudes was to come to an abrupt halt however with the 1988 Education Reform Act, ‘widely regarded as the most radical shift in policy and practice enacted by a British government since the Second World War’ (Cameron 1995 p.80). The Conservative government, by then in its third term of office, sought to limit the power of local authorities, many of whom it saw as left-wing and permissive, by bringing education under more centralised control. Among other measures, the Act introduced a National Curriculum which all pupils aged between 5 and 16 in state schools in England and Wales were required to follow. Detailed programmes of study and attainment targets were to be laid down for the core subjects and all children in the state sector were to take compulsory national tests (SATs[4]) at ages 7, 11 and 14 with the results published in the national press. English was to be ‘at the heart of the National Curriculum’ (DFE 1993 p. 71)
The responsibility for recommending the model of spoken and written English to be taught in schools was assigned to a committee appointed by Kenneth Baker, Secretary of State for Education and made up of academic linguists, HMIs[5], members of the teaching profession, journalists and broadcasters, novelists and poets, under the chairmanship of Sir John Kingman FRS, a professor of mathematics. The committee took evidence from a number of bodies and individuals, including many linguists, and produced a model with four interdependent sections.
Part 1: The forms of the English Language
Part 2: Communication and comprehension
Part 3: Acquisition and development
Part 4: Historical and geographical variation
(Kingman 1988 p.17)
NS varieties of English were given prominence in Part 4 which listed dialect-related topics which would enable pupils ‘to comment illuminatingly upon the process of language change and the history of English’ (ibid p. 30). Subjects for discussion included ‘the systematic ways in which the grammar of some dialects differs from the grammar of SE, ‘the retention of forms in some dialects which have disappeared from SE’ and ‘the reasons why there is more and greater dialect variation in the British Isles than in Australia’ (ibid p. 30) The recommendation was that pupils should be introduced to a descriptive grammar of English based on linguistic analyses of both standard and NS varieties. In contrast, the teaching of prescriptive grammar (ie ‘traditional grammar based on Latin ‘rules’) was not recommended. [We do not] ‘see it as part of our task to plead for a return to old-fashioned grammar teaching and learning by rote’ (ibid. p 3). The rejection of traditional grammar teaching meant that the report was not received with full approval by the government when the proposals were presented to them in April 1988.
In spite of reservations, the government appointed a National Curriculum English Working Group to draw up attainment targets, programmes of study and associated assessment arrangements for English. It was to be chaired by Brian Cox, Professor of English Literature at Manchester University and formerly a member of the Kingman Committee. Two linguists, Katherine Perera and Michael Stubbs were among the nine members of the working group. The Cox Report was published in June 1989. The overriding aim of the new English curriculum was ‘to enable all pupils to develop to the full their ability to use and understand English…….and the fullest possible development of [their] capabilities in speaking, listening, reading and writing’. (DES 1989: 2:13). As in the Kingman Report, the emphasis was on descriptive rather than prescriptive grammar.
Although the Cox Report stressed the entitlement of all children to Standard English, since ‘if pupils do not have access to Standard English, many opportunities are closed to them in cultural activities, in further and higher education and in industry, commerce and the professions.’ (DES 1989: 4.), it was clearly stated that that SE is a social dialect ‘which has particular uses’ and should not be confused with ‘good English’ (ibid. 4.11). Moreover, it stressed that SE should be taught ‘in ways that do not denigrate the NS dialects spoken by many pupils’ (ibid. 4.42). Knowledge about Language was to be addressed in all sections of the English curriculum: teachers should encourage an interest in both rural and urban NS dialects; the grammar of both SE and NS dialects should be discussed and contrasted ‘using the pupils as the linguistic experts’ on the latter. The ages at which proficiency in SE might be expected were clearly specified: all children should realistically be expected to be able to use SE in speech by the age of 16; ‘there should be explicit teaching about the nature of SE in the top years of primary school’ and ‘there should be the beginnings of the expectation of SE in written work where appropriate by the age of 11’ (ibid 4.38)
The Report was not well received. ‘Mr Baker, Secretary of State for Education, ‘very much disliked’ it (Cox 1991 p. 11) believing that it did not place enough emphasis on grammar, spelling and punctuation. ‘Mrs Rumbold, then Minister of State for Education, found the Report ‘distasteful… and from her radio and television appearances it seemed she found repugnant [the] insistence that a child’s dialect is not inaccurate in its use of grammar and should be respected’ (Cox 1991 p. 11). The Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was the final arbiter. She ‘agreed to allow the Report to go out for consultation provided that, in the Attainment Targets for Writing where [it] stated, ‘Use Standard English where appropriate’ the phrase ‘where appropriate’ was deleted’. Professor Cox changed the text to …Use Standard English, except in contexts where non-standard forms are necessary for literary purposes e.g. in a dialogue or a playscript’ (Cox 1991 p.12).
English and the politicians
The English language had by now ceased to be merely part of the school curriculum. It had become ‘a crucial focus of tension and debate …. serving as a site upon which political positions [were] argued’ (Crowley 1989 p. 258). Kingman and Cox had not produced the model of English the government required. Cox subsequently reflected, ‘Many politicians and journalists were ignorant about the problems in the teaching of grammar and the status of Standard English and simply desired to reinstate the disciplines of study typical of the 1930s.’ (Cox 1991 p 4.) More in tune with Conservative sentiments was John Marenbon, a mediaeval historian and member of the Centre for Policy Studies, whose pamphlet ‘English, our English’ exhorted politicians to ‘keep strong in their common sense, distrustful of experts and chaste towards fashion…….for in the future of its language there lies the future of a nation’ (Marenbon 1987 p. 40). In the succeeding revisions of the National Curriculum, expert linguistic advice was eschewed in favour of ‘common sense’ or folk linguistic views of language.