In England, as in many other parts of Europe, the number of migrant children has risen considerably in recent years as a result of both planned migration from the EU and forced migration from areas of conflict. Consequently teachers in schools in all regions – including those previously unaccustomed to linguistic differences in their pupils – are likely to have English language learners (ELLs) in their classes and face a need to adapt their practice.

In response to linguistic and demographic changes in schools, this study explores the intentions of policy makers for the teaching of English as an additional language (EAL) and the realities for teachers managing the teaching of rising numbers of ELLs in primary schools. Specifically, the study addresses the following research questions:

1. What are the intentions of national policy makers for the teaching of English Language Learners (ELLs) as expressed through policy documentation?
2. How is policy for the teaching of ELLs interpreted at local level?
3. What are the differences between the intentions of policy makers and the practical realities for teachers enacting language policy?

During the past ten or more years changing governments’ priorities have not necessarily been in step with the change in classroom experience of practitioners. For example, between 2005 and 2009 educational policy documentation was published for the teaching of ELLs that reflected the aims and content of the then current National Curriculum in England. Although this documentation was not necessarily widely used (Flynn, 2013), it was symbolic of a commitment to language policy that acknowledged a changing language landscape. After 2010, a different political agenda saw a reduction in explicit language policy aimed at supporting teachers of ELLs; this despite a rising cohort of foreign-born children in both primary and secondary schools (Strand et al, 2015).

Alongside this shift in language policy direction, the discourse in educational policy for the teaching of English in England also changed profoundly. The most noticeable change is the assumption that pupils will learn to use English through the explicit teaching of grammar. Thus the curriculum for English, together with its assessment procedures, is framed for monolingual English-as-L1 speakers (Safford and Drury, 2013) with little attention given to how pedagogy for ELLs might differ. In this respect, a mismatch between language policy and the needs of multilingual learners has been created.

While there is a growing body of work from many different countries investigating language policy issues related to migrant children, there are only a few studies (Flynn, 2015; Foley et al., 2013; Safford et al., 2013) in the UK that focus on how explicit or implicit government/institutional policies shape teachers’ perceptions and practices of teaching ELLs. Our study attempts to fill the gap by drawing on the notions of policy engagement and critical language policy analysis to understand how teachers construct the meanings of policies as they strive to meet the needs of ELLs. By employing a questionnaire and analysing policy documents, this study examines: firstly, how language policy for the teaching of ELLs has changed during the past decade in England; and secondly, how teachers navigate their own professional needs in an environment where language policy is not supportive in their teaching practice for ELLs.

Language policy engagement is a complex and dynamic process, involving a policy cycle of “creation, interpretation and appropriation” (Johnson, 2013). In disambiguating language policy planning from language policy enactment in super-diverse Britain (Vertovec, 2007), this study has the potential to inform language policy and practice for migrant children in countries throughout Europe.

Ball, S.J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10-17. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow, UK: Pearson. Foley, Y., Sangster, P., & Anderson, C (2013). Examining EAL policy and practice in mainstream schools. Language and Education, 27 (3), 191-206. Flynn, N. (2013). Linguistic capital and the linguistic field for teachers unaccustomed to linguistic difference. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(2), 225 – 242. Flynn, N. (2015). Disambiguating with Bourdieu: unravelling policy from practice in the teaching of children with English as an additional language. Literacy (Methodology Matters Special Edition), 49 (1), 20 – 27. Johnson, D.C. (2013) Language Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan Johnson, D.C. (2015). Intertextual analysis and language policy. In F.M. Hult and D.C Johnson (eds.), Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide. (pp. 166-180). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M. & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically Responsive Teacher Education: Preparing Classroom Teachers to Teach English Language Learners, Journal of Teacher Education, 59 (4), 361 – 373. Safford, K., & Drury, R. (2013). The 'problem' of bilingual children in educational settings: policy and research in England. Language and Education, 27 (1), 70 - 81. Strand, S., Malmberg, L., Hall, J. (2015) English as an Additional Language (EAL) and educational achievement in England: An analysis of the National Pupil Database, Oxford: University of Oxford Department of Education. Vertovec, S. (2007). Superdiversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (6), 1024-1054.