Intensive English programmes at international schools

By Pete on July 5, 2023 • ( 2 )

Some half-thoughts on Intensive English Programmes at international schools. Feel free to comment and share your experiences.

Intensive English Programmes have become a big thing at international schools in my region. As part of my recent job hunt, I researched over 20 int schools in SE Asia, chatting with EAL staff at many of them. The majority of those schools offered (or were planning to offer) intensive English programmes aimed at secondary learners with emerging or developing English proficiency.

Aims and approaches to intensive programmes

The broad aims of these programmes are usually to help learners develop their proficiency enough to integrate into mainstream classes. The content, structure and approach of this provision varied from school to school. Some schools seemed to be offering a TEFL-style crash course up to general intermediate level. Others provided a graded version of the mainstream curriculum to closed intensive groups. Others had some kind of hybrid push-in pull-out thingy going on. Overall, I’d say there were two common features across most of the intensive programmes described to me:

Learners on intensive programmes were segregated from mainstream classrooms to an extent. In many cases, learners followed a reduced mainstream timetable of core subjects (e.g. Maths, Science), with subjects like Art, DT, (sometimes) History or Geography replaced by separate additional language classes.
Separate language classes typically followed (however loosely in practice!) a structural syllabus.
Where these classes did focus more on subject-related content (perhaps a graded version of mainstream content), they were almost always delivered by EAL specialists only.

Possible issues with these approaches

The segregated provision on these courses is IMO controversial. In a chapter on inclusive practices for EAL learners, Hancock (2012:6) emphasizes the importance of mainstreaming and push-in approaches. They also highlight that following a structural syllabus may not be the best approach. Here’s a long quote related to language sensitive pedagogy:

‘For language support to be effective it cannot be taught using the traditional methodology for modern foreign languages, namely, through a discrete set of skills in a prescriptive step-by-step fashion, using textbooks and employing a progression of discrete grammar-translation rules. The practice of placing some new arrivals into separate language classes has also been condemned, and such segregated provision is viewed as a form of institutionalised racism. The argument put forward here is that withdrawing children and young people from mainstream classrooms results in stigmatization and reinforces the notion of ‘deficit’ and ‘difference’. This provision also restricts learners’ contact with English speaking peers and access to the full curriculum available in mainstream classrooms.’

Despite strong arguments against segregated provision, many schools seem to opt for this approach in these programmes (including my previous school). I wonder what the implications of segregated provision might be on the learners, both academically and on their sense of belonging within the school community.

I also wonder about the prescriptive approach that is (reportedly) followed in many cases. There may be benefits to following a structural syllabus in that it makes the goals explicit to all from the outset – not least to the parents to whom schools are selling the programme. However, does that give learners what they really need? Especially with regards to accessing curriculum content…

Only one intensive programme I heard about really focused on getting subject teachers involved – beyond their usual input from mainstream lessons. For example, some of the additional language classes learners received were delivered by subject and language teachers in tandem. Having the expertise of both subject and language specialists would certainly be preferable, although few schools seemed to have a system in place for linking their intensive programme more tightly to the mainstream curriculum.

A different approach?

For me, a good intensive programme would involve more mainstream-integrated provision and in-class support than many of the courses I heard about. It would also involve closer collaboration between subject teachers and language specialists – any form of graded mainstream curriculum would most certainly involve co-teaching and co-planning. Any syllabus for an intensive programme would be quite organic, reacting to learner needs as they arise (and are observed) during mainstream classes. Any ‘language classes’ focusing more on, say, general skills development or BICS, may be provided as extra-curricular activities (projects, conversation classes, etc).

Anyhow, I guess these are my ideals. If I’m tasked with creating an intensive programme at my new school then maybe I’ll come to see more value in segregated provision. I’m not too taken by the message it sends out though. It was very interesting to hear about how these programmes are approached at various schools – it’s certainly given me some food for thought!

Over to you: Do you have any thoughts on intensive English programmes at international schools? Do you know any schools that you feel do this well, and how? Are you in favour of segregated provision for EAL learners with limited proficiency (some being new to English)?

Reference

Hancock, A 2012, ‘Inclusive practices for pupils with English as an additional language’. in R Arshad, T Wrigley & L Pratt (eds), Social Justice Re-Examined: Dilemmas and Solutions for the Classroom Teacher. Trentham Books Ltd, Stoke-on-Trent, pp. 97-113.