Translocations: Migration and Social Change
An Inter-Disciplinary Open Access E-Journal
ISSN Number: 2009-0420
________________________________________________________________________
Immigrant Students and Second Level Education in the Republic of Ireland
Rachael Fionda
Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, Dublin
(email: fiondar@tcd.ie)
____________________________________________________________________
Abstract
Every child in Ireland has a right to education, as set out in Article 42 of the 1937
Constitution. Children from immigrant backgrounds, regardless of their status or the status
of their families, are both entitled to and required to enrol in school, and to begin or
continue their education. Access to education offers students the opportunity to engage in
the kind of social and intellectual development which leads to equal access to participation
in democratic society. The Sinnott case of 2001 argued that education be based on the
needs (in this case, the needs of a child with intellectual disabilities) of the child. The
Supreme Court overruled this assumption (Carroll, 2002) and now immigrants in the Irish
school system bring to light the issue of the child’s right to education. This paper addresses
this fundamental right and discusses how education is provided in Irish post-primary
schools in response to the social changes of the past two decades (McGorman & Sugrue,
2007). It asks to what extent social, cultural and linguistic capital interact between society,
school and child, and how dominant cultural ideology is maintained. My research draws on
Gramsci's approach to power distribution and social control, hegemony and social
reproduction (Gramsci, 1971; Tosi, 1988) and on Bourdieu’s social and cultural capital
framework (Bourdieu, 1991, 1993 & 1997).
The focus is on language support for students who speak English1 as a second language,
and on how schools use language support provision to implement a whole-school approach
which meets the needs of the diverse student population.
Keywords: education, migrant adolescents, integration, language issues
_______________________________________________________________
1
This paper refers to post-primary schools which use the English language as their medium of instruction.
Similar issues occur for migrant students who are educated in the Irish medium schools.
1
Introduction
Students under eighteen years of age from immigrant families have rights regarding
education equal to their Irish born/native English speaking peers (Little & Lazenby
Simpson, 2009). However, ensuring access to education for a linguistically and culturally
diverse student population offers both challenges and opportunities for policy makers and
educators. In the past two decades Ireland has responded to unprecedented immigration
with a variety of proposals in the education system (see report on Dublin 15, McGorman &
Sugrue, 2007). Initiatives include a per capita teaching allowance (usually capped at two
teachers per school) which typically equates to two hours of weekly language support
lessons for two years per student (DES, 2007 & 2009; Nowlan, 2008), assessment packs
(IILT, 2009) and intercultural guidelines (NCCA, 2006). The key issue is to make sure
students from immigrant backgrounds have access to education from day one, to develop
their proficiency in the language of instruction, and that language support links to the
curriculum so that these children do not miss out on developing their content knowledge,
their awareness of abstract concepts and the other skills necessary to participate in state
assessment and later job/further education opportunities. Effective diverse classrooms are
characterised by meaningful curriculum based content, teacher-student and peer
collaboration, encouragement of interaction and engagement via multiple teaching
strategies, ICT and building on students’ prior knowledge (adapted from Ovando et al.,
2006: 146).
According to the Department of Education and Skills (DES) the official goals of language
support are to create an ‘inclusive school environment’ and to foster proficiency in the
language of the curriculum (DES, 2009) in order to open up access to educational
development. As well as achieving positive results in the mainstream classroom, another
important goal is to foster positive social relationships between all students. Studies show
that, at present, post-primary level students from an immigrant background are more likely
to suffer from bullying and/or racial incidents than their peers (Smyth at al., 2009: 28).
Moreover, research shows how students who speak English as a second language are not
being given equal access to education, and language support programmes are largely
uncoordinated and inadequate (Nowlan, 2008; Lyons & Little, 2009). Reviews of provision
uncover a disparity between the educational achievement of students in the Irish system
who are native English speakers and those students who speak a language which is a
minority language in Irish society: “There is a gap in achievement between those students
who speak English at home and those who do not” (OECD, 2009: 9).
My research into provision for immigrant students in Irish post-primary schools highlights
the link between educational and social dimensions, and derives from Gramsci’s theory of
cultural hegemony (Gramsci, 1971; Tosi, 1988). Hegemony can be defined as the securing
of power and social control via the establishment and distribution of public knowledge
(Gramsci, 1971; Tosi, 1988: 90): This means that selected groups in a society are privy to
valuable knowledge (such as school knowledge or qualifications, cf. Bourdieu, 1991)
which can be used to maintain a higher social status or position of power, while those
without access to the information are unable to effectively participate in social structures
affecting their life and their position within that society.
Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony can be applied to the context of educational
provision for immigrant students, particularly those who speak English as a second
language because they possess both linguistic and cultural capital at odds with the Irish
2
‘norm.’ Policy and/or practice in place for such students maintains the privileges and
power of the majority, at the cost of provision of equal chances for Ireland’s immigrant
students. This means that students from immigrant backgrounds miss out on access to
education because the school curriculum values cultural and linguistic capital that many of
these students have little prior experience of and, via hegemony, such exclusion is
maintained. This exclusion limits the potential of such groups, which may include those
students from a low socioeconomic background, Irish national ethnic minority groups
(Travellers), Irish born ethnic/linguistic minority groups, as well as immigrant students.
Broader issues are raised, related to the Irish curriculum’s potential to be drawn upon by all
teaching staff in order to deliver a broad education for today’s students as global citizens.
Immigrant students:
may have difficulty accessing education without support because of a limited
command of the language through which the curriculum is delivered. This is
likely to be the case for those who have recently arrived in Ireland, but may also
apply to children who were born in Ireland or are living here for a longer time
whose home language is not English.
Nowlan, 2008: 253-254
Lyons & Little (2009), Nowlan (2008) and Devine (2005) recognise that such students face
significant obstacles in accessing education, such as social, cultural and religious barriers,
as well as linguistic ones. Research into these issues can be valuable not only to immigrant
students but also to English and Irish speaking students who, while having been born in
Ireland to Irish parents, may face similar obstacles due to their divergence from the norm,
and perhaps to prepare all students for participation in an increasingly diverse society.
This research also draws on Bourdieu’s theories regarding cultural and linguistic capital
(1991 & 1997). Bourdieu is interested in social inequality, and he turns much of his
attention to education, language and symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1991), particularly how
subordinated groups progress (or not) in society (Mills and Gale, 2007: 434). When
considering the role of scholastic achievement he observed how inequality means that what
children draw from the education process depends upon their existing capital:
The notion of cultural capital initially presented itself to me…as the theoretical
hypothesis which made it possible to explain the unequal scholastic
achievement of children originating from the different social classes by relating
academic success, i.e., the specific profits which children from the different
classes and class fractions can obtain from the academic market, to the
distribution of cultural capital between the classes and class fractions.
Bourdieu, 1997: 47
Within the habitus of this research English is considered to be valuable linguistic capital,
or more specifically a variety of English which may be called ‘school English’ or ‘formal
English:’ “In order for one mode of expression among others…to impose itself as the only
legitimate one, the linguistic market had to be unified and the different dialects (of class,
region or ethnic group) have to be measured practically against the legitimate language…”
(Bourdieu, 1991: 45). So, the education process as a ‘system of reproduction’ legitimises
and reproduces the cultural values of the dominant group, thus creating a hierarchy of
3
relations in school while maintaining the power relationships of society (Bourdieu, 1993a:
212).
According to Bourdieu’s theories, English as a second language (ESL) students do in fact
possess a rich cultural capital to contribute to the resources of any school which includes
their varied linguistic abilities and cultural experiences that are distinct from the often
(more) homogeneous linguistic and cultural experiences of students born in Ireland (not
ignoring the differences in social background of these students). However, research shows
that “Bilingual students’ linguistic abilities are not valued as cultural capital. Since
bilingual students’ habitus is framed by these discourses, there is a danger that stereotypes
will emerge and become self perpetuating, resulting in lower expectations on the part of
both students and teachers” (Nowlan, 2008: 262). Mills and Gale (2007) summarise these
issues: “For marginalized groups, the cultural capital of their families, the ways in which
they see and experience the world, is not highly valued in schools or at least by the
schooling system in general,” (p 435), and I found evidence that this opinion is true within
the Irish ESL context. Cummins emphasises how the immigrant student is disempowered
by education institutions throughout the world (Cummins, 1997) and much literature
claims that this disempowerment is a reflection of the habitus of the individual educators
(Nowlan, 2008), of institution wide and national policy/legislation (Lentin & McVeigh,
2006; Kuhling & Keohane, 2007) and of the society in which the educational institution is
set.
Discrimination in schools reflects discrimination within the broader society: “…school
practices are understood to be influenced by their location within the broader social and
policy contexts, as well as by the individual actors in schools – students, teachers and
parents” (Nowlan, 2008: 254), and much recent research in the field of diversity in Irish
schools has concentrated on such issues (see, for example, Devine, 2005). It is important to
highlight the roles of the teacher, the school and the DES – they are all significant, having
a major influence on students’ education and sharing responsibility for immigrant students
in the school system.
In Irish society discrimination is represented by, on the one hand, a tendency to “provide
for” and acknowledge minorities (Lentin & McVeigh, 2006: 5-6) and observe the current
wave of “multi-cultural” and “anti-racist” education initiatives (NCCA, 2006)) and on the
other hand by the reluctance (of either schools, teachers and/or DES) to support
educational programmes which provide adequate access to mainstream education. Among
the characteristics of an effective programme is the acknowledgement of a child’s first
language and culture: “It would seem that the outcomes of compensatory, multicultural or
anti-racist education vary very little when schools choose to remain monolingual, because
they are politically or professionally impotent to cope with bilingualism” (Tosi, 1988: 96).
So, the challenge faced by immigrant students is complex. Not only must they acquire
English as a second language for everyday functional use, but they must also acquire
‘school language’ required for discursive argument, while constantly constructing
knowledge about the often new environment around them, engaging in academic content
and asserting their identity in school and their relationships:
4
Traditionally, knowledge has been delivered through transmitting
predetermined cultural norms and traditions that could be reproduced by
students when solving problems.
Farr, 2008: 26
My main research question is: Within the framework of Irish post-primary school
structures and provision (DES 2007 & 2009), are immigrant students given effective
educational provision? I spent a great deal of time in schools in the Dublin area to
establish to what extent the DES provision and schools meet the needs of immigrant
students. The findings link research on educational disadvantage to the context specific
needs of diversity in Irish post–primary education.
Research design
The empirical research gathered data which build an indicative picture of:



How Ireland is meeting the challenges of diversity in schools
Opportunities for sharing best practice
Needs analyses and areas for future study
The exploratory and pilot phase of the research involved informal meetings and
presentations with teachers from the Dublin area. Here participants documented the
challenges in providing access to the curriculum, including lack of materials and resources,
unclear definition of English language support, timetabling complications, limited teacher
training, pressure to prepare students for state exams, segregation from mainstream
teachers, students arriving at different times during the year, and addressing multi-level
classes.
The findings of the exploratory stage formed the foundation for the main part of my
empirical research:
Survey


October – December 2007
o Meetings with teachers to form a sample group
January 2008 – April 2008
o Pilot phase and survey visits to 10 schools
The survey involved collaboration with 10 Dublin schools and a survey of their language
support programmes resulting in data collected from circa 40 semi-structured interviews
with school staff. Analysis of these data resulted in a description of the landscape of
Dublin post-primary schools and the variety of ways to implement a programme based on
the guidelines provided by DES (2007). The research is qualitative; with ten schools and
between 3-4 participants at each school, the number of interviews possible was 40, and
with scope for each participant to speak for between 10-40 minutes (one teaching period).
The participants included the school principal, language support coordinator, language
support teacher and a mainstream subject teacher.
One element of this study involved exploring tentative suggestions concerning the
effectiveness of whole school provision; specifically how well each language support
programme meets the needs of students, and to isolate characteristics of the whole school
5
environment and language support programme that suggest effective ways to provide
access to education to immigrant students.
Findings
The data correspond with the context specific literature, as reviewed partly in the
introduction of this article (Nowlan, 2008; Lyons & Little, 2009; Smyth et al., 2009 and
OECD, 2009). Specifically, that the needs of students who speak English as a second
language are not being met (or are being met only to varying degrees in each institution)
and so these students are missing out on the opportunity to fully participate in their
education, develop their intellectual capabilities and gain access to all that follows
compulsory education; further or higher education and employment opportunities. Schools
which meet the needs of immigrant students better than others tend to rely largely on
voluntary participation which impinges upon teachers’ free time. Schools and teachers are
struggling under the challenges of: Lack of resources, uncertainty about what best practice
is, limited teacher training, mainstream subject teachers not taking responsibility for
diversity in the classroom.
My findings relate to students, school organisation, teachers and inside the classroom.
Students
The percentage of immigrant students in the total school student population survey is
varied, from 2% to 45%; the average is 15%. This compares to the nationwide average of
5%; Ryan (2007) stated that 17,000 immigrant students are enrolled in Irish post-primary
schools (for the school year 2006/2007). 60% of these students speak English as a second
language.
Students are entitled to two years of language support. However, the majority of
participants claim that the 2 year limit is insufficient. While this guideline is becoming
more flexible (DES, 2009: 5), principals state that the extra bureaucracy in applying for
additional hours and justifying continuing language support for students outside of official
allocation is both confusing and time consuming. Because immigrant students can arrive at
any point during the school year, the bureaucracy in applying for students who arrive after
the start of the autumn term is also a demand on school resources.
There was much variation as regards how many lessons per week of language support
students were given and much variation in the process of organising the timetable. In many
cases, students simply receive language support when Irish is timetabled. In more than two
schools English speaking students who did not participate in Irish were present and so the
allocated teaching period for language support was turned into a homework supervision
session.
School organisation
Two of the ten schools surveyed had developed a language support policy which covered
issues such as aims, assessment, timetable, group size, classroom content and liaison with
mainstream subject teachers. Three of the schools were in the process of developing a
policy which covered the needs of immigrant students. In the remaining schools, principals
felt the needs were met by other policies, such as the general school ethos or mission
statement, or in the English department’s policy.
6
The development of the language support timetable within the schools’ master timetables
is another complex and non-uniform feature of the survey schools. The survey schools
delegate this responsibility to various individuals, bodies/departments within their school;
the pastoral care team, learning support team, the vice-principal, the sole language support
teacher, the language support coordinator. The majority of schools developed their
language support programme after the master timetable was compiled; only in one school
did the coordinator have access to the master timetable during its development. In this
case, the coordinator gave a list of requirements to the principal, based on immigrant
student intake estimates and existing students, and detailing the demand for teachers
(including specific teacher suggestions and number of groups) which the principal could
keep in mind when compiling the master timetable. With some compromise, the timetables
are then developed together. Typical of most of the schools surveyed is a system where
allocated hours are slotted in against staff members’ free periods, often clashing with
mainstream subjects which the immigrant student could participate in.
A major challenge when compiling the language support timetable (and the master
timetable) is once more the issue of uncertainty of immigrant student numbers. Even when
a satisfactory timetable is arranged, there must still be a large degree of flexibility built in,
to cope with the fluctuations in demand. For many of the schools, due to the many
constraints of a school environment, such flexibility is simply not built into their provision
for immigrant students.
All of the schools in the survey timetabled language support against Irish (which students
not born in Ireland are usually exempt from: DES, 1994). Most schools timetable language
support simply when a teacher has space on their timetable, trying as far as possible to
avoid subjects which the students need for Leaving Cert or Junior Cert ( Ireland’s state
assessment exams taken at 15 and 17/18 years of age respectively) or could participate in.
Procedures varied regarding which subjects a school believed it was acceptable/beneficial
to withdraw a student from.
According to the principals interviewed, approximately one third of schools’ language
support programmes are coordinated by the language support teacher, just over one third
by an especially assigned coordinator, two schools assigned a team made up of, for
example, a learning support teacher (which is a support for students with learning
difficulties) and head of English among other members of staff, and one school had
nobody assigned to the role.
Regarding the two year limit for English language support, the assumption that once a
student sounds reasonably fluent in English, then she/he will be able to fully access the
mainstream curriculum is evident in the way language support is sometimes offered. The
two year cap for support was criticised by all participants who feel that many students need
support beyond this – and the application process for extending the two year period gave
participants more cause to complain regarding the additional bureaucracy.
Teachers
7
Communication between language support teachers and mainstream subject teachers was
confusing in all of the schools which participated in the survey. Many mainstream teachers
were unaware of such a programme, and others believed immigrant students and their
language needs should be dealt with entirely by language support and so restricted access
to the content of their lessons until students’ English proficiency levels were ‘good
enough.’ This practice goes against DES guidelines (DES, 2009: 2) and international
research on best practice, which indicates that language support should be embedded in
mainstream subject classrooms from day one (Nowlan, 2008; Cummins, 2000 & 2001;
Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Many teachers were not aware that their own subject should be
covered by the language support programme.
Three of the schools interviewed managed to facilitate communication between the
language support staff and the mainstream subject staff to some degree, although even
these three schools lamented that this often took place on teachers’ own time. Lack of
communication between these groups had a negative impact on the support given to
students in the language support classroom, particularly in terms of lesson content.
Most principals exercise a policy, whether consciously or not, of employing the school’s
mainstream English teachers as language support teachers. There is a tendency for
teachers who provide language support to be either unqualified in the area of teaching a
non-native language, to be an unqualified teacher without official teaching status, or to be
simply a mainstream teacher with free periods. Just half of the teachers interviewed had a
qualification in teaching English as a non-native language.
Inside the classroom
One third of language support lessons in the schools surveyed took place in a specially
allocated language support/learning support classroom, a third in normal classrooms and a
third in rooms not normally used for teaching due to their small size or location within
recreation facilities (for example, behind a screen in the PE hall). Two schools allocated
newly-built portacabin style teaching accommodation to language support. One school
assigned their coordinator’s tutor room as the language support homeroom, keeping all of
the resources and copies of the students’ work there, as well as offering an ‘open-door
policy’ where students could come in and sit at any time to do their homework or read
from the small language support/bilingual library.
Survey participants were divided regarding whether the current set up of language support
adequately prepared students for participation in the Junior Cert and Leaving Cert. Most
principals said that they didn’t feel able to provide the support necessary to provide
immigrant students with the same opportunities for passing exams as Irish nationals. Less
than one third of schools interviewed adapted their programme to give extra provision to
students in their exam years.
8
Discussion
The findings above are in line with Nowlan’s article (2008), and emerging literature in the
field which identifies gaps in provision for immigrant students in the Irish post-primary
system and contributes to emerging literature which addresses educational policies for
Ireland’s migrant students and their practice in schools (Devine, 2005; IILT, 2007; Little,
2009; Lyons & Little; 2009; Smyth et al., 2009; OECD, 2010). Language support in Irish
post-primary schools should ideally provide immigrant students with a link from their prior
educational experiences, should foster language proficiency in the language of instruction
(English, in this case) and engage students in the Irish curriculum. However, language
support is often inadequate and therefore disadvantage is unintentionally reproduced by
some school processes and thus immigrant students are not always given effective
educational provision.
Research addresses what the ideal definition of provision for immigrant students should be
in Ireland in order to provide access to their basic right of education. Keogh & Whyte
(2003) refer to European and human rights philosophies in their observations that provision
for migrant students means not simply asking the students themselves to ‘fit in,’ but rather
a long term and sustained effort on the part of policy makers and schools to include and
value a diverse student population:
It means that every effort should be made to provide them with the support they
need to achieve their potential and the same standard of education as their peers,
without forcing them into a situation where they have to deny their ethnic and
cultural heritage, traditions and beliefs.
Ibid., 2003: 8
In their study they stressed that there are two difficulties faced by some immigrant students
– acquiring English and making progress in mainstream subjects, as well as acquiring the
cultural knowledge which is required by the curriculum (ibid.:23).
A major criticism of DES allocation is the limited time allowed for language support
classes. According to the Circulars (DES, 2007 & 2009) ESL students are entitled to
“effectively two hours per week for two years” (Nowlan, 2009: 260). This amount of
provision is widely regarded as inadequate (Nowlan, 2008; Lyons & Little, 2009).
Moreover, this support is ‘capped’ at 2 years, and this limitation is the foundation of many
complaints, both anecdotally and in the literature; “Student entitlement to language support
(effectively two hours per week for two years) was widely held to be inadequate” (Nowlan,
2008: 260). Immigrant students who speak English as a second language need considerably
longer periods of support from language support teachers and all mainstream subject
teachers: “In contrast to the 2 to 3 years needed to reach proficiency in basic L2 skills,
Cummins found that a period of 5 to 7 years of study in the second language is required to
reach native-speaker levels in school language” (Collier, 1989: 516, emphasis added) and
“For school purposes, language acquisition also must include the vocabulary and special
uses of language for each subject area, such as metalinguistic analysis of language in
language arts classes and many other learning strategies associated with the use of
language in each content area…” (ibid.: 510).
9
Language support for immigrant students is provided on the same terms whether a student
arrives in the country with no proficiency in English or with a high level of proficiency. By
viewing the students as a homogenous group with exactly the same starting point in terms
of educational experience and English language proficiency, responsibility towards the
individual student is diminished. So, inequalities in the education system are reflected and
maintained by policy and/or implementation of that policy, which reflects current debates
in society on discrimination in general, and in a reciprocal relationship. Hegemonic
processes describe how a process such as defining the immigrant group as a homogeneous
group serves to ‘other’ them and foster the maintenance of social control (Gramsci, 1971:
12-13):
it relies on its covert ability to combine the interests of other classes or groups
with its own interests. When this is achieved the hegemonic group has
succeeded in extending its cultural control to include all state institutions and
will therefore present itself as the sole authorized representative of all the
different interests of a socially and culturally diverse society.
Tosi, 1988: 91
Several of the findings indicate that language support is viewed as possessing little cultural
capital and is under-resourced and undervalued as a result. Lyons and Little (2009) suggest
that immigrant students fare badly due to poorly coordinated English language support and
lack of communication between language support and mainstream teachers. This was a
significant issue revealed in the findings of this research too, and means that language
support isn’t being consciously linked to the content of the mainstream subjects, depriving
students of access to the curriculum and therefore also to their education. Most staff
involved in language support teaching described how provision, as it stands, still doesn’t
prepare students for their exams. The most recent circular (DES, 2009) alludes to more
emphasis on mainstream support (rather than withdrawal). However, there is little point in
mainstreaming immigrant students’ support, or of expecting mainstream teachers to ‘take
over’ language support if they are unprepared, unable or unwilling to take responsibility
for ESL students in their classroom or for the language component of their subject. This
reflects a tendency towards discrimination within the state to give with one hand but take
away with the other (Lentin & McVeigh, 2006: 5-6).
Inflexibility within schools is one indication o f this tendency. Timetabling was a major
issue highlighted by the principals, teachers and coordinators in the findings, who
emphasised that a timetable which remains flexible to the evolving needs of the immigrant
student is key to creating a successful language support programme. However, not all
schools are currently able to implement a flexible programme. For many schools in the
survey what limits their capacity for putting a flexible timetable into practice is availability
(or unavailability) of a pool of language support teachers. The issue of what to do with
immigrant students who arrive during the school year came up again and again in the data,
across the participant types and across the interview sections.
The success of a programme, according to the participants, depends on the existence of a
language support coordinator. Creating such a role in a school also gives status to a
school’s efforts towards promoting a whole school approach to provision for immigrant
students. Participants in schools without this post highlighted this absence as a limiting
factor in the school’s provision of supports to immigrant students. Those schools with a
10
language support coordinator did not offer remuneration for the role and so teachers
worked on a voluntary basis. Teachers in general are reported as saying that they are
“struggling to meet the needs of their bilingual [ESL] students in a context of limited
training and resources,” (Nowlan, 2008: 253). Research shows that while teachers feel
positive towards working with immigrant students (Devine, 2005), a lack of the necessary
knowledge required to best provide language support, sometimes racist attitudes (Kearney,
2008), as well as the other everyday pressures of a school, mean that teachers’ perceptions
of their role and attitudes towards the students are biased by the often difficult working
conditions.
Nowlan (2008) addresses the issue of what constitutes best practice in the Irish ESL
context; she highlights the relationship between ethnic identity and educational
achievement; whole-school engagement in interculturalism and anti-racism; formal
coordination with schools, students and parents; pre-service training and regular in-service
training on intercultural issues and language awareness; communication between parents
and schools; and democratic school leadership (ibid.: 257). She goes on to specify the
necessity of thorough initial assessment and acknowledgement of L1 skills (ibid.). The
relatively small scale survey presented here shows how far many schools have to go in
order to bridge the gap from current provision which often falls short of best practice.
Conclusion
Immigrant students in Irish post-primary schools have rights to education but do not
always have access to a system where they can achieve educational success. There is a
need for the Irish education system to examine other interventions that will sustain
immigrant pupils’ long-term academic progress, rather than solely seeking short-term
‘quick-fix’ solutions to rectify these pupils’ so-called underachievement in English.
Schools and teachers (mainstream and language support) should share responsibility for
immigrant students, underpinned by a more accommodating DES policy: “Until the DES
forges a more flexible policy that takes account of international findings, large numbers of
newcomer students in our post-primary schools will continue to be at serious risk of
educational failure” (Lyons and Little, 2009). Ireland’s provision for immigrant students,
as it stands, seems to be offering its students compensatory education (Tosi, 1988: 83)
often spoken of in the same breath as special needs education. The need for teachers and
schools to take responsibility for professional development and for the DES to take
responsibility for better dissemination of information is strongly recommended.
Immigrant students are at a disadvantage when they enter the Irish post-primary education
system because their cultural and linguistic capital is often not valued by teachers, schools
or the curriculum. Language support is one response to try to bridge the gap between
immigrant students’ existing capital and that which is valued by the schools. However, at
present, language support does not achieve its goals in all schools and the disadvantage
faced by immigrant students is maintained and reproduced. If diversity is to be really
valued in the Irish post-primary classroom then language support must be taken seriously
across the whole-school environment and be supported by a flexible policy. Research
shows that “Language support practices vary widely and do not reflect international best
practice,” (Nowlan, 2008: 253) and Lyons & Little agree, summarising language support
as “poorly coordinated” and “downright haphazard” (2009). Schools do not always provide
equal access to immigrant students so that they can benefit from the opportunities that Irish
education offers.
11
References
Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Polity Press)
Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production (Cambridge: Polity Press)
Bourdieu, P. (1997) ‘The Forms of Capital’, in Halsey, A., Lauder, H., Brown, P. & StuartWells, A., (eds.) Education: Culture, Economy, Society (Oxford: OUP)
Carroll, E. (2002) An Ethical Approach to Children, A paper to the Irish Social Policy
Association Annual Conference Social and Economic Rights: Challenges and
Opportunities for Social Policy Dublin City University
Collier, V. P. (1989) ‘How Long? A Synthesis of Research on Academic Achievement in a
Second Language’, Tesol Quarterly, 23, pp. 509 – 531
Constitution of Ireland (1937) available online:
http://www.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionofIreland.pdf (accessed 20 May 2011)
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000) Multiliteracies - Literacy learning and the design of
social future, (London: Routledge)
Cummins, J. (1997) ‘Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Education: a mainstream issue?’,
Educational Review, 49 (2), pp. 105 - 114
Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy - Bilingual Children in the Crossfire
(Clevedon, Multilingual Matters)
Cummins, J. (2001) ‘Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention’,
Harvard Educational Review, 71, pp. 656 - 676
DES (1994) Circular M10/94 Revision of Rule 46 of the "Rules and Programme for
Secondary Schools" in relation to exemption from Irish (Dublin: DES)
DES (2007) Circular 0053/2007 - Meeting the needs of pupils for whom English is a
second language (Dublin: DES)
DES (2009) Circular 0015/2009 - Meeting the needs of pupils learning English as an
Additional Language (EAL) (Dublin: DES)
Devine, D. (2005) ‘Welcome to the Celtic Tiger? Teacher responses to immigration and
increasing ethnic diversity in Irish schools’, International Studies in Sociology of
Education, 15, pp. 49 - 70
Farr, F. (2008) ‘Modality in context: spoken language, variety and the classroom’, in
Gallagher, A (ed.), Language Education in Ireland: current practice and future needs
(Dublin: IRAAL)
12
Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (London: Lawrence and
Wishart)
IILT (2009) Post-Primary Assessment Kit (Dublin: IILT)
Kearney, F. (2008) Inclusion or Invasion? How Post-Primary Teachers View Newcomer
Students. Unpublished Master of Studies thesis (Dublin: School of Education, Trinity
College)
Keogh, A., and J. Whyte. (2003) Getting on: The experiences of immigrant students in
second level schools linked to the Trinity access programmes (Dublin: Children’s Research
Centre, Trinity College)
Kuhling, C. & Keohane, K. (2007) Cosmopolitan Ireland (London: Pluto Press)
Lentin, R. & McVeigh, R. (2006) After Optimism: Ireland, Racism and Globalisation
(Dublin: Metro Éireann Publications)
Little, D. (2009) ‘Language Learner Autonomy and the European Language Portfolio: Two
English Examples’, Language Teaching, 42, pp. 222-233
Little, D. & Lazenby-Simpson, B. (2009) ‘Immigration, citizenship and language’, in
ALDERSON, J. C. (ed.) The Politics of Language Education: Individuals and Institutions
(Cambridge, CUP)
Lyons, Z. & Little, D. (2009) English Language Support in Irish Post-Primary Schools:
Policy, challenges and deficits (Dublin: TII, Trinity College)
McGorman, E. & Sugrue, C. (2007) Intercultural Education: Primary Challenges in
Dublin 15 (Dublin: Social Inclusion Unit of the Department of Education and Skills)
Mills, C. & Gale, T. (2007) ‘Researching social inequalities in education: towards a
Bourdieuian methodology’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20,
pp. 433-447
NCCA (2006) Intercultural Education in the Post-Primary School (Dublin: DES)
Nowlan, E. (2008) ‘Underneath the Band-Aid: supporting bilingual students in Irish
schools’, Irish Educational Studies, 27, pp. 253 - 266
OECD (2009) OECD Reviews of Migrant Education – Ireland (Paris: OECD)
Ovando, C. J., Combs, M. C. & Collier, V. P. (2006) Bilingual and ESL Classrooms:
Teaching in Multicultural Contexts (Boston: McGraw-Hill)
Ryan, P. (2007) The Educational Needs of Newcomer Children (Dublin: DES)
Smyth, E., Darmody, M., Mcginnity, F. & Byrne, D. (2009) Adapting To Diversity: Irish
Schools And Newcomer Students (Dublin: The Economic And Social Research Institute)
13
Tosi, A. (1988) ‘The jewel in the crown of the Modern Prince: The new approach to
bilingualism in multicultural education in England’, in Cummins J. & Skutnabb-Kangas,
T., (eds.), Minority Education: from Shame to Struggle (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters)
14