Cover not available
Part of
National foreign language policies for primary schools: Global perspectives
Edited by Janet Enever
[Language Teaching for Young Learners 2:2] 2020
► pp. 162–191
POLICY OVERVIEW

Global language policies

Moving English up the educational escalator

| Umeå University Sweden | King’s College London

This paper reviews patterns of primary foreign language policy across the world, analysing the development of policy and subsequent implementation processes with reference to the particular local histories and current politics at regional, national and supranational levels of governance. In providing an overview of current provision and recent research the paper draws on the theoretical frame of historical materialism to consider the impact of global forces in three economic regions of the world today in contexts where substantial growth in the provision of primary foreign languages is now evident – described by Graddol, with reference to English specifically, as a process of “moving up the educational escalator”. Themes threaded throughout the paper include power and resistance to soft policy, perspectives of social justice and an emerging global expectation for accountability and transparency with regard to primary foreign languages policy. In reviewing recent developments in the field of educational policy research the final section raises questions around the extent to which teachers may shape language policy in education, acting as critical interpreters of policy in an agentive role, adapting and refining national and local curriculum policy to meet the needs of their learners.

Keywords: language policy, primary, global forces, accountability, social justice
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language policy
    • 2.1Overview of kindergarten and primary language policy publications
  • 3.Primary foreign language policy development
    • 3.1Hungary. Policy for a new Europe
      • 3.1.1The process of policy formation
      • 3.1.2Unintended outcomes
    • 3.2Vietnam. planning for 2020
      • 3.2.1Developing guidance for evaluating foreign language teachers
      • 3.2.2An ongoing process of modification and refinement
    • 3.3Uruguay. A policy for democratisation
      • 3.3.1Group planning as a democratic principle
      • 3.3.2National consultation process
      • 3.3.3Drafting a language progressions framework
  • 4.Reviewing language-in-education policy and teacher agency
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19021.ene
References
Baldauf, R. B.
(2006) Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecology context. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2–3), 147–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldauf, R. B., Kaplan, R. B., Kamwangamalu, N. M., & Bryant, P.
(Eds.) (2012) Language planning in primary schools in Asia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Báthory, Z.
(1993) A national core curriculum and the democratisation of public education in Hungary. Curriculum Studies, 1(1), 91–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P.
(1990) The third wave: Education and the ideology of parentocracy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(1), 65–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y. G.
(2017) Motivational elements of digital instructional games: A study of young L2 learners’ game designs. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 735–750. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canh, L. V.
(2019) English language teaching in Vietnam: Aspirations, realities, and challenges. In L. V. Canh, H. T. M. Nguyen, N. T. T. Minh, & R. Barnard (Eds.), Building teacher capacity in English language teaching in Vietnam. Research, policy and practice (pp. 7–23). London: CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canh, L. V., & Chi, D. T. M. C.
(2012) Teacher preparation for primary school English education. A case of Vietnam. In B. Spolsky & Y-I. Moon (Eds.), Primary school English-language education in Asia: From policy to practice (pp. 106–128). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cedefop
(2012) Curriculum reform in Europe. The impact of learning outcomes. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from: [URL]> (7 April 2020).
Corson, D.
(1999) Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(2018) Collated representative samples of descriptors of language competences developed for young learners aged 7–10 years / 11–15 years. Volumes I & II. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from: [URL]> (7 April 2020).
(2001) Common European Framework for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from: [URL]
Cox, R.
(1981) Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 101, 126–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dung, L. H.
(2015) Challenges in development of English language proficiency: A perspective from Vietnam. In T. W. Bigalke & S. Sharbawi (Eds.), English for ASEAN integration: Policies and practices in the region (pp. 52–59). Brunei Darussalam: University Brunei Darussalam.Google Scholar
Enever, J.
(2019) Looking beyond the local: Equity as a global concern in early language learning. In J. Enever & P. Driscoll (Eds.), Policy and practice in early language learning. AILA Review, 32(1), 10–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Policy and politics in global primary English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enever, J., Moon, J., & Raman, U.
(Eds.) (2009) Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Reading: Garnet Education.Google Scholar
Englund, T.
(2011) The linguistic turn within curriculum theory, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(2), 193–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice
(2017) Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from: [URL]> (7 April 2020).
Eyal, G., Szelyeni, I. & Townsley, E.
(1998) Making capitalism without capitalists. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A.
(1971) The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society. In J. Fishman, (Ed.), Advances in the sociology of language (pp. 217–258). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fullan, M., Watson, N., & Anderson, S.
(2013) Ceibal: Next steps. Final report. Toronto: Michael Fullan Enterprises.Google Scholar
García, O. & Menken, K.
(2010) Stirring the Onion. Educators and the dynamics of language education policies (Looking forward). K. Menken & O. Garcia (Eds). Negotiating language policies in schools: educators as policymakers. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Graddol, D.
(2006) English next. London: British Council.Google Scholar
Haugen, E.
(1972) Ecology of language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hélot, C., & Ó Laoire, M.
(Eds.) (2011) Language policy for the multilingual classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornberger, N. H., & Ricento, T. K.
(Eds.) (1996) Language planning and policy. Special issue. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3).Google Scholar
Hult, F. M.
(2018a) Foreign language education policy on the horizon. Foreign Language Annals, 541, 35–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b) Engaging pre-service English teachers with language policy. ELT Journal, 72(3), 249–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hung, N. N.
(2015) Vietnam’s National Foreign Language 2020 Project: Challenges, opportunities, and solutions. In T. W. Bigalke & S. Sharbawi (Eds.), English for ASEAN integration: Policies and practices in the region (pp. 62–64). Brunei Darussalam: Universiti Brunei Darussalam.Google Scholar
Johnstone, R. M.
(2018) Language policy and English for young learners in early education. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp.13–29). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) An early start: What are the key conditions for generalised success? In J. Enever, J. Moon, & U. Raman. (Eds.), Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives (pp. 31–42). Reading: Garnet Education.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A.
(2019) Foreward. In L. V. Canh, H. T. M. Nguyen, N. T. T. Minh, & R. Barnard (Eds.), Building teacher capacity in English language teaching in Vietnam: Research, Policy and Practice (pp. x–xvi). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kovacs, K.
(2000) Transitions in Hungary. In D. Coulby, R. Cowen, & C. Jones (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2000: Education in times of transition (pp. 76–87). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, B.
(2001) Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 351, 537–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2018) Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 511, 55–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddicoat, A. J.
(2013) Language-in-education policies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Little, D.
(2007) The common European framework of reference for languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 911, 645–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo Bianco, J.
(2010) Language policy and planning. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 143–174). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lukes, S.
(2005) Power: A radical view (2nd edn). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCurry, J.
(2006, February 17). How low can Japan go? Guardian Weekly. Retrieved from [URL]> (8 April 2020).
MCRN
(2017) Marco Curricular de Referencia Nacional (National Curriculum Framework). Uruguay: National Public Education Administration (ANEP). Retrieved from: [URL]> (8 April 2020).
MEC
(2008) Ley General de Educación. Ley No. 18 437 (General Education Law No. 18,437). Ministry of Education and Culture, Oriental Republic of Uruguay. Montevideo: National Publications Office.Google Scholar
Menken, K., & García, O.
(2010) Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Culture and Education
(1996) National Core Curriculum. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Moon, J.
(2009) The teacher factor in early foreign language learning programmes. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), The age factor and early language learning (pp.311–336). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2005) Investigating the teaching of English at primary level in Vietnam: A summary report. Conference Proceedings: English Language Teaching at Primary Level (2–3 June, 2005) (pp.47–55). Hanoi, Vietnam: Ministry of Education and Training.Google Scholar
Murphy, V., & Evangolou, M.
(Eds.) (2016) Early childhood education in English for speakers of other languages. London: British Council. Retrieved from: [URL]> (8 April 2020).
Murray, J.
(2009) Teacher competencies in the post-method landscape: The limits of competency-based training in TESOL teacher education. Prospect, 24(1), 17–29.Google Scholar
Nagai, N., & O’Dwyer, F.
(2012) The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education in Japan. Synergies Europe, 61, 141–52.Google Scholar
Nagy, J., & Szebenyi, P.
(1990) Hungarian reform: Towards a curriculum for the 1990s. The Curriculum Journal, 33(4), 247–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newby, D., Allan, R., Fenner, A-B., Jones, B., Komorowska, H., & Soghikyan, K.
(2007) European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. T. M.
(2011) Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: Insights from implementation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 225–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, H. T. M., & Bui, T.
(2016) Teachers’ agency and the enactment of educational reform in Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(1), 88–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Offe, C.
(1996) Modernity and the state. East, west. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R.
(1992) Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T.
(1996) English only worldwide or language ecology? TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 429–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricento, T.
(2015) Political economy and English as a ‘global’ language. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 11, 31–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N.
(1996) Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rixon, S.
(2013) British Council survey of policy and practice in primary English language teaching worldwide. London: British Council. Retrieved from: [URL]> (8 April 2020).
Santiago, P., Ávalos, B., Burns, T., Morduchowicz, A., & Radinger, T.
(2016) OECD Reviews of School Resources. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E.
(2003) Implications of language education policies for language study in schools and universities. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 278–286.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B., & Moon, Y-I.
(Eds.) (2012) Primary school English-language education in Asia, from policy to practice. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stanley, G.
(2017) Remote teaching: A case study teaching primary school children English via videoconferencing in Uruguay. In M. Carrier, R. M. Damerow, & K. M. Bailey (Eds.), Digital language learning: research, theory and practice (pp. 188–197). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tollefson, J.
(1991) Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, B. M.
(2014) Language diversity and language policy in educational access and equity. Review of Research in Education, 381, 189–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
UNESCO
(2016) Global education monitoring report. Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. Paris: United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.Google Scholar
(2011) International standard classification of education. Retrieved from [URL]> (16 October 2019).
Van, H. V.
(2018) MOET’S three pilot English language communicational curricula for schools in Vietnam: Rationale, design and implementation. Vietnam National University Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(2), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Calzada, Asier
2022. Review of Zein & Coady (2021): Early Language Learning Policy in the 21st Century. An International Perspective. Language Teaching for Young Learners 4:2 ► pp. 293 ff. DOI logo
Macalister, John & Le Hong Phuong Thao
2023. Promoting young EFL learners’ oral production through storytelling: coursebook adaptation in the Vietnamese classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0 DOI logo
Ruas, Linda & Ali Djau
2023. Policy on Global Issues in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Possible Role for ELT from Examples in Guinea Bissau, Senegal and DRC. In Interface between English Language Education Policies and Practice, ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Terasawa, Takunori
2022. What made primary English education in Japan different from the global trend? A policy process analysis. Linguistics and Education 71 ► pp. 101084 ff. DOI logo
Zhu, Yan, Bo Peng, Dingfang Shu & Fangyuan Du
2024. Unpacking Chinese young learners’ L2 learning motivation: Does CLIL make a difference?. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.