Theme 2: Comparisons across two linguistically different settings

A) Differences between England and Wales

There were notable differences between the perspectives and experiences of practitioners in England compared to those in Wales. These distinctions could be partially attributed to linguistic differences in the English and Welsh educational systems. In Wales, many of the staff were bilingual themselves so could adapt their language use more readily and have more flexible expectations for language in the classroom. For example, Lucy’s bilingualism impacted her support of the two children under discussion, as she states: ‘when I knew they both knew Welsh I tried to include more Welsh when I work with them’. As a Welsh-speaker, Lucy reflected on her own linguistic identity, commenting, ‘if I speak English to my parents, they would be quite upset that I’m not utilizing this language that I’ve got… it feels like something is wrong’. This notion of it feeling ‘wrong’ to use a non-native language with family members resonates with Bethan’s earlier suggestion that language use should be determined by how ‘natural’ a language feels to the child. Bethan also asserted that the Welsh language was an integral component of her identity, remarking, ‘I speak to friends in Welsh outside of

work, and it’s just a pleasure for me’. Both Bethan and Lucy are indicating that being bilingual − or having access to their home language of Welsh − contributes to their sense of well-being.

The linguistic identity of staff may therefore play some role in their reflections on the challenges and opportunities of bilingualism in autism. As practitioners in Wales were bilingual themselves, they may have identified more − linguistically-speaking − with their students than practitioners in England, who tended to describe themselves as monolinguals: ‘I don’t speak any other languages’ (Cath), ‘I’m not a bilingual learner, I am a person who just dipped in and dipped out’ (Debbie), and ‘I’d love to speak two languages’ (Emma). It is likely, then, that within a bilingual educational system, in which staff are also bilingual, bilingualism is more likely to be promoted and understood than in a more monolingual system, like in England. This finding gives further credence to Yu and Hsia’s call (2018) for greater linguistic and cultural diversity among professionals who support bilingual children with special educational needs. This diversity is needed among the staff body in both monolingual and bilingual educational settings.

In England, there was both less confidence about supporting bilingual pupils and less promotion of bilingualism than in Wales. Discussing the support of EAL pupils, Emma stated that ‘as a new teacher it’s something I’m a bit unsure about’, which suggests that increasing knowledge and understanding of EAL could be more effectively embedded into initial teacher education. In a similar vein, Natalia had not received any formal training on supporting EAL pupils and Dawn noted that a recent rise in EAL pupils in her school ‘has been a real learning curve for everyone’. The fact that practitioners did not view pupils’ multilingualism as a central facet of their profiles may further reinforce monolingual practices in England. For example, in schools in England with fewer EAL pupils, a number of teachers asserted that the language expectations for the classroom tended to be ‘English only’. Dawn remarked that ‘we certainly can’t support his Spanish language needs at school because we’re in England, and speak English’. Other teachers expressed similar sentiments: ‘we don’t offer an option of speaking in Polish’ (Paula) and ‘I wouldn’t be expected to learn Italian to try to communicate with him [Luke]’ (Robert).

While in England the language of instruction is almost exclusively English, practitioners in Wales highlighted the difficult choice parents had to make about whether to

send their child to a Welsh-medium (WM) or English-medium (EM) school. Suzanne noted how her pupil, Glyn, was about to move to a WM mainstream secondary school from a specialist autism unit within an EM primary school. She expressed concerns about the impact of a different language of instruction on Glyn’s school experience: ‘if they are purely Welsh and it’s a different structure, I just don’t want him to get too anxious’. Moving in the opposite direction, Bethan believed that a move from a WM to an EM school was the right decision for Dyfan, because she believed that a Welsh-medium environment was ‘holding him back’ and ‘making a difference on his confidence’. Deciding on the most appropriate language of instruction was evidently not an issue for practitioners in England, given the principally monolingual educational system.

B) Commonalities between England and Wales

Although practitioners’ perspectives and experiences differed somewhat between the two linguistically different educational settings, there were some distinct commonalities between the accounts in England and Wales. As in the children’s accounts, the linguistic profile of the school in which practitioners worked seemed to be indicative of their perceptions of bilingualism; those working in schools with a higher proportion of bilingual pupils (both in Welsh-medium schools and schools in England with a higher percentage of EAL pupils) tended to hold more positive views about the merits of bilingualism. In Cath’s school, for instance, every student spoke a different language at home. She noted that pupils ‘are not discouraged to speak their own language’ and suggested that the language expectations for the classroom varied according to the task at hand: ‘when they’re doing a more free activity, you’ll get some children who will speak in their own language’. Cath also described ways in which the school supported children’s home language maintenance, such as sending dual language books home so that parents who are less confident in English could actively engage in their child’s literacy development in both languages. Similarly, Emma and Debbie worked in more multilingual schools and indicated the possible advantages of drawing on children’s multilingual repertoires. Instead of viewing bilingualism as a barrier, Debbie highlighted the importance of ‘complementing the skills they have from being an EAL learner’. In Wales, Anwen also emphasised that Ryan’s access to two languages, rather than one, enriched his natural inquisitiveness and will have significant benefits for his educational outcomes. Accordingly, the views of practitioners working in schools in England with high numbers of EAL students

were more akin to those of practitioners in Wales than to educators in England who worked in more monolingual school environments.

Whether in a bilingual or monolingual education system, educators asserted that the children were more comfortable in English than in their home language, or than they were in Welsh for those with English as a first language. In England, even practitioners who were concerned about the effects of bilingualism in autism highlighted that the child tended to use English: ‘I’ve never heard him speak Polish at all’ (Paula) and ‘he is very used to English here’ (Natalia). This may be unsurprising given the previously discussed findings that in England an ‘English only’ approach was the norm. However, in Wales, a similar finding emerged whereby practitioners noted that children often reverted to English when communicating with peers, despite being in a Welsh-medium environment. Gill summarises this trend: ‘it causes a lot of conflict within the mainstream because they’re obviously in a Welsh-medium environment that they’re learning, but they seem to always pick English’. Bethan reinforces this point by suggesting that, ‘there are lots of schools who have difficulty having the children speak Welsh in the yard because all the children prefer to speak English’. Even in a bilingual educational system, then, there may be challenges in ensuring opportunities for children – particularly those with limited desire or capacity for social interaction - to utilise both languages.

Another challenge faced by educators in both Wales and England was how to assess bilingual autistic pupils. Suzanne commented that ‘assessing Jack’s language in either English or Welsh has been very difficult’. She continued by underscoring the possible differences between language use at home and at school, inferring that children’s linguistic performance in school may not be a true reflection of their ability: ‘as every parent says, whether their child speaks English, Welsh, both, nothing, the child will perform differently at school to when they’re at home’. Gill adds that Jack and Glyn’s mother ‘feels they understand more in Welsh’, despite being educated in an English-medium environment. Difficulty assessing students was also raised by practitioners in England. Debbie, for instance, stated that ‘the reading material that you ask a child to read for an assessment is culturally biased’. Finding ways to assess pupils in both languages, wherever possible, and providing assessments that are culturally appropriate may help to alleviate this issue (Bird et al., 2016a). These findings also suggest that advice to parents to adopt an ‘English only’ approach may be particularly harmful if the child is more confident expressing themselves in the home language, as it may further deny them opportunities for interaction in the familial environment.

4.6.2. Analysis

Certain differences emerged between practitioners’ attitudes towards bilingualism in Wales and in England. These attitudes could well be attributed to the fact that practitioners in Wales were generally bilingual themselves, while those in England tended to identify as monolingual. This finding reflects conclusions drawn in the children’s accounts in chapter 3, whereby children educated in more multilingual environments tended to hold more positive attitudes about being bilingual than those in more monolingual school settings. It is unsurprising that practitioners who belong to a bilingual educational system, as in Wales, are more convinced by the benefits of dual language use. In England, by contrast, particularly in schools with fewer EAL pupils, practitioners regarded English as the sole language of instruction in the school environment and home languages as the domain of familial life. Educators in England also had less confidence in supporting bilingual students, which tallies with the findings that EAL training in England is insufficient (Murphy & Evangelou, 2016) and that teachers frequently have to ‘learn on the job’ (Murakami, 2008, p.268).

Although there were linguistic differences between the two contexts, practitioners in England and Wales also faced similar challenges. In fact, educators in schools with a higher percentage of EAL pupils often had more in common with practitioners in Wales than those in England with few EAL pupils when it came to perceptions of multilingualism. Most notably, practitioners in more multilingual environments held more positive views about the merits of bilingualism. Despite positive attitudes to bilingualism in Wales, practitioners reported that many children in Welsh-medium schools still preferred English when communicating with peers, in keeping with the findings of Thomas et al. (2012). This may be because adolescent learners often associate the Welsh language with more formal domains such as educational and nationalistic discourses (Price & Tamburelli, 2016).

Educators in England reported a similar situation, in which the multilingual children they supported tended to value and use English more in school than their home language. This tendency to give superior status to English has also been documented in the EAL literature (Liu & Evans, 2016) and could be the result of ‘linguistic mainstreaming’ (Bracken et al., 2017). Another commonly held view between practitioners across the two settings was that assessing bilingual pupils was problematic. This finding runs parallel to the sub-theme discussed in 4.5.1. that describes the challenges educators face when trying to identify special educational needs

in bilingual children. Although providing assessments in both languages is recommended (Bird et al., 2016a), most assessments rely on literacy skills, which the child may not have in their home language. This can compound issues in assessing bilingual children with accuracy and equality. It highlights the need for further research into the effective assessment of bilingual learners, both in identifying additional needs and capturing their ability in different areas of the curriculum.

4.7. Theme 3: Creating inclusive learning environments