1 have previously presented Baker and (2000) data in order to illustrate that England is not a monolingual country. However, simply illustrating multilingualism through statistical data is not sufficient. The large majority of speakers of other languages speak English as a second language in order to communicate successfully with the other communities within England. Additionally, English is currentiy the international language of commerce, business and travel and spoken globally by a wide range of speakers as a second or foreign language. In relation to other European countries, England is one of the few European countries that can claim that 'its' language is the international lingua franca as the Nuffield Languages Inquiry report (Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 14) points out:
English is the international lingua franca. English has emerged as the first real global language in an age where a global language is both possible and necessary. It is the language of science, technology and technical communication; the language medium for global investment, aviation, development aid and medicine. New strategies for survival in fields as diverse as food supply, the human genome or mastery of space are unlikely to be brokered in another language. For anyone involved in international business it has become a basic requirement and the Indian subcontinent as much as North America relates to the global economy in English.
(Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 14)
At the same time, the Nuffield Languages Inquiry report (Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 14) also highlights the danger of this positioning of English as an international language:
English alone is not enough. In the face of such widespread acceptance and use of English the UK's complacent view of its limited capability in other languages is understandable. It is also dangerous. In a world where bilingualism and plurilingualism are commonplace, monolingualism implies inflexibility, insensitivity and arrogance. Much that is essential to our society, its health and its interests - including effective choice in policy, realisation of citizenship, effective overseas links and openness to the inventions of other culmres - will not be achieved in one language alone.
(Nuffield Fondation, 2000: 14)
The Nuffield Languages team points out that English is not enough. However, the use of English as a lingua franca is detrimental to the status of other languages in England, no matter whether they are community languages or foreign languages. This leaves foreign language teachers with the same old problem that foreign languages are marginalised within the school curriculum and foreign language teachers feel like 'gardening in a gale.' (Hawkins, 1981: 97-98)
None of the arguments in favour of a plurilingual Europe can entirely resolve this problem of language status. However, considering the role of language for learning in a CLIL context might be another means to address the role of languages inside schools. Language learners at secondary school, just as their parents and policy decision makers, might not be able to value languages due to the status of English outside the school environment. Therefore, it is the school's role to raise the importance of (foreign) language learning inside tiie school environment.
One means to raise the status of (foreign) language/s is to consider the school curriculum not as separate subjects, but in cross-curricular terms. After all, language is the medium for learning in all subjects as is pointed out in the Bullock report (DES, 1975: 514):
Each school should have an organised policy for language across the curriculum, establishing every teacher's involvement in language and reading development throughout the years of schooling.
(DES, 1975: 514)
Marland (1977: 67) further comment on the role of language for learning:
Because access to so much learning is through language, and because the very process of understanding involves verbalizing, that is because learning is operating with language, it is clearly important that all teachers have an outline idea of the fundamentals of how language works. Whatever our specialist function in education we work with language, and we must, as individuals and as a school team, have a common attimde towards our most precious skill.
(Marland, 1977: 67)
The issue of learning through language is currentiy being addressed with the introduction of the National Literacy Strategy. Its framework for Key Stage 3, for
15-year old learners, is outiined as follows:
Language lies at the heart of the drive to raise standards in secondary schools. It is the key to developing in young people the capacity to express themselves with confidence, to think logically, creatively and imaginatively and to developing a deep understanding of literamre and the wider culmre.
(DfEE, 2000)
The 'framework for teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9' is described as 'challenges':
It contains challenges to stretch the gifted and talented, and an imperative to act quickly to bring underachieving pupils up to the level of their peers. Most of all, it equips all pupils for the world in which they will live and work - a world which places a high premium on the written and spoken word, where reading and writing permeate every aspect of life, and where pleasures often derive from good discussion, excellent books and the power of writing.
Visiting the relevant web-pages of the 'Standards Site', a website intended to support teachers in their implementation of the National Literacy Strategy, is quite revealing for the further examination of the National Literacy Strategy in practice. Although there is a section addressed at Modern Foreign Language teachers it directs users to the 'Framework for teaching English'. In practice, so far, the National Literacy Strategy has failed to address the issue of language across the curriculum within the teaching and learning of foreign languages, although the existing CLIL schools could offer a basis for this. Paraphrasing the Bullock report (DES, 1975) findings - every subject teacher is a language teacher - a way forward to consider the foreign language curriculum is to reverse this argument: Every
(foreign) language teacher is a subject teacher. Linking this to Mohan's (1986: iv)
previously discussed argument that 'it is absurd to ignore the role of content, just as it is absurd to ignore the role of languages as a medium of learning in the content class' further strengthens the argument for approaches in English secondary schools. Because of the lack of contact with foreign languages outside the school, schools have to be enabled to deliver a foreign language curriculum that provides learners with the opportunity to become as motivated and fluent as other European learners. This oppormnity can be offered through the implementation of
programmes as the related comment in the Nuffield Languages Inquiry's report (Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 46) illustrates:
The practice
olds at [the College du an comprehensive school [...] smdy geography, ICT, history and personal and social education through the medium of French.
It was found that lower ability children who had followed the bilingual programme performed better in English than those who had not. Boys seemed to do especially
(Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 46)
The practice described in the Nuffield final report refers to the College du where I conducted my research as teacher-researcher. Through offering the learners foreign language learning through other subjects, the status of the foreign language has been raised. The teachers in the BFC have become subject teachers who teach through a foreign language: they teach a foreign language across the curriculum.
Considering CLIL approaches as a means of teaching a foreign language across the curriculum also implies cross-curricular teaching and learning approaches. this sense, CLIL offers the potential for the systematic exploitation of cross-curricular contexts. Verma and Pumfrey (1993: 6) comment on these in general:
Education should aim to familiarise pupils with the great intellecmal, moral, religious, and other achievements of the human race. It is also supposed to initiate them not merely into the culmral capital of their own community but also that of other groups. In this way, the function of education would be to humanize rather than merely to socialize. They are to be taught the languages, history, geography, culture, social strucmres, religion and so on of other communities in order that they can learn to appreciate the unity and diversity of mankind.
(Verma and Pumfrey, 1993: 6)
CLIL approaches could contribute to the further development of the holistic curriculum outiined by Verma and Pumfrey (1993: 6). Verma and Pumfrey (1993: 6) echo the findings from the Nuffield Languages Inquiry (Nuffield Foundation, 2000) and (2002) related arguments when they write that:
Modern societies expect their education system to prepare their young for their expected roles and responsibilities in life. It also seeks to transmit knowledge, skills and attimdes that would enable them to operate effectively as individuals and as members of society in the world of work, community and in the transnational context.
(Verma and Pumfrey, 1993: 35)
Considering CLIL approaches in a cross-curricular context as outiined by Verma and Pumfrey (1993), they do not just offer increased performance of learners in the foreign language as illustrated in the previously reported research findings (Cummins and Swain, 1986; Barbier, 1989; Calve, 1991; Cummins, 1983; Genesee, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1987; Stern, 1978; Swain, 1980), but CLIL also potentially contributes to creating a truly cross-curricular curriculum where teaching and learning content through a foreign language is the norm rather than the exception.
So far, I have examined the current situation for the teaching and learning of modern foreign languages in England in general terms. I have started by presenting
the variety of languages spoken in London and have related this to the current MFL crisis in English secondary schools. I have described CLIL approaches as a means to address this crisis and have outlined the potential benefits of natural and learned bilingualism. I have given a brief overview of CLIL frameworks in some EU countries and have pointed out that there are no officially recognised CLIL sections in English schools. In order to move on the discussion 1 have considered CLIL in relation to Language Across the Curriculum and have argued that in order to raise the status of foreign languages in spite of the perception of England as a monolingual country it is schools that could raise the status of foreign languages from within. In the following section, I illustrate how this has been done at the College du the school where I conducted my research, by introducing the Bilingual Foundation Course (BFC).