Constraining Teachers: Adult ESL SettlementLanguage Training Policy and Implementation

EVE HAQUEYork UniversityToronto, Ontario, Canada

ELLEN CRAYCarleton UniversityOttawa, Ontario, Canada

� There is a growing interest in discovering how teachers understandand realize language-in-education policies in their classrooms. The nu-merous issues around what Stritikus (2003) has termed the policy-to-

634 TESOL QUARTERLY

practice connection centre on questions of how the teacher understands apolicy; what support in the form of curricula, guides to implementation,and teaching materials are provided; what beliefs and ideologies theteacher holds; and how the context of teaching impinges on practice. AsJennings (1996) makes clear, teachers do not simply translate policy intoclassroom practice; their teaching is influenced if not determined bymany factors, including those just listed. Furthermore, as Fleming (1998)has shown, the wide variety of circumstances under which teachers teachplaces a high degree of curriculum responsibility on the ESL instructor.All of these affect teacher autonomy and agency (p. 30).

In 1992, Canada mandated official language instruction for all adultnewcomers who were either immigrants or refugees and who lacked alevel of language proficiency that would allow them to settle and inte-grate. The previous immigrant language training policy, Canadian JobStrategy (CJS), focussed on the provision of language instruction forthose newcomers likely to enter the labour market. Under CJS, relativelyfew newcomers had access to language training, and women and indi-viduals with low levels of education were underrepresented. Not only wasthe provision restrictive, it was also expensive and inefficient. The newprovision of 1992, titled Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada(LINC), required that newcomers have access to programs that wereaccessible, flexible, and timely. Newcomers are expected to enter lan-guage training as soon after arrival as possible; Canadian citizens arebarred from LINC programs.

Between 1992 and the present, a number of documents that interpretand elaborate the policy for teachers have been published. These in-clude the Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000 (CLB 2000; Pawlikowska-Smith, 2000), a set of benchmarks that lays out learning objectives andassessment indicators; Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: A Guide toImplementation (Holmes, Kingwell, Pettis, & Pidlaski, 2001) and LINCCurriculum Guidelines: Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (Hajer,Robinson, & Witol, 2002), documents that translate the benchmarks intoteaching approaches, themes, and activities. Teachers are required touse the CLB 2000 to guide their teaching and assessment practices buthave complained that the benchmarks are difficult to interpret and re-alize.1 The supplementary documents are meant to interpret the bench-

1 CLB 2000 is a set of “12 benchmarks or reference points” detailing a “scale of communi-cative proficiency in English as a Second Language (ESL)” that guide what teachers inLINC programs teach and how they assess learners in their classes (Pawlikowska-Smith,2000, p. VIII). The benchmarks are, according to the introduction, “learner-centred,”“task-based,” and “competency-based” (p. VIII), with example activities that are relevant tonewcomers’ everyday lives. Each of the benchmarks contains outcomes and standards forthe four skills. For example, Benchmark 3: Speaking specifies that learners at this levelshould be able to “greet, introduce self and ask about another person” (p. 11), and

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 635

marks so that teachers can plan classes which satisfy the requirement thatLINC programs teach the language as well as the values, rights, andresponsibilities of Canadian life.

In early 2006 we interviewed 25 LINC teachers in a midsized Canadiancity with a variety of LINC programs. Although we were primarily inter-ested in discovering how teachers understood the requirement thatLINC classes serve as sites of language instruction and settlement edu-cation, we report here on what contextual features the teachers saw asinfluencing, often constraining, how and what they taught. The teachersin the sample taught in a variety of settings, including adult high schools,adult education centers, churches, portable classrooms, schools, andsmall dedicated centers. Levels ranged from low beginner to intermedi-ate. Many teachers, particularly those in small programs, had multilevelclasses, the results of the terms of contracts that required programs toallow students to enrol at any time during the term and to maintainminimum levels of attendance.

CANADIAN LANGUAGE BENCHMARKS 2000

Teachers in LINC programs viewed the CLB 2000 as central to theprogram. What they understood of LINC came from the benchmarks: AsHelen2 noted, “You have to use benchmarks.” This requirement wasreinforced by the fact that the Guide to Implementation and LINC Curricu-lum Guidelines were based on the benchmarks. They regulated whatteachers did in the classroom in three ways. First, teachers were requiredto use the benchmarks when planning assessment procedures for learn-ers. As a result, many teachers in this study believed that the benchmarksconstrained the extent to which they could make independent judg-ments about learners’ attainment of the objectives relevant to learners’lives. Second, teachers were expected to use the CLB 2000 themes, skills,and grammar points, thus regulating what could be taught in the LINCclassroom. Again the requirement that teachers use the benchmarkslimited their ability to determine what learners needed, wanted, or ex-pected. Finally, teachers had to report student progress on the basis ofthe benchmarks, a mechanism that further insured teachers would usethe CLB 2000 to inform both teaching and assessment.

During the interviews, teachers often reported that although they

Benchmark 5: Speaking sets the objective that a learner being able to “relate a sequenceof events in the present, past or future” (p. 59). Example tasks and performance indicatorsare also included for each benchmark. The introduction notes that CLB 2000 is not acurriculum guide nor is it tied to a particular methodological approach to teaching En-glish. It is meant to establish a national standard for the teaching of English to adults.

2 Teachers are identified by pseudonyms.

636 TESOL QUARTERLY

were mindful of what learners needed and relied on their own expertiseand experience when planning lessons, the benchmarks stood as anever-present reality, a set of reference points that teachers were expectedto acknowledge. In whatever ways teachers did or did not use the bench-marks, CLB 2000 framed what they taught and how they assessed thelearners in their classes. However, another set of factors also influencedthese activities: the conditions under which teachers worked.

TEACHING CONDITIONS ANDTEACHER CONSTRAINTS

The constraints imposed on the LINC teachers we interviewed wereconsiderable; these included isolation, lack of job security, lack of pro-fessional development, underfunded programs, continuous intake, lowwages, and problems with professional accreditation. In his discussionabout what influences the teaching of second and foreign languageteachers in the United States, Crookes (1997) identified many issues thatoverlapped with those encountered by the LINC teachers. According toCrookes, it is particularly important to note that teachers are isolated ina number of ways: by their subordinate status, the physical and tightscheduling restrictions which limit interactions, and the exclusion oflesson preparation and professional development as part of teachers’paid professional responsibilities (p. 68).

The isolation experienced by some LINC teachers was exacerbated bythe lack of resources. Although some LINC classes were located in edu-cation centres where teachers had access to books and photocopiers,teachers in off-site classes, in portables, school and church basements,community centres, and office buildings, had very few such resources.Several of the teachers interviewed worked in small off-site programs withonly two teachers. These programs were often in less than ideal locationswith small, poorly equipped classrooms and no resources. For example,one program was in a converted townhouse located in a complex wheremany newcomers lived. The main classroom was a living room so smallthat it was impossible for students to leave their seats without forcingothers to move as well. In another location, a LINC class was located inthe basement room directly beneath a gymnasium. It was impossible torecord part of the interview because basketballs were being bounced inthe gym. In another off-site program, students had year-round classes inportable classrooms with no washrooms and no place other than a nar-row corridor for students to meet during breaks. Another teacher told ofteaching LINC in a community centre gym with motion sensors forlighting; if there was not enough movement in the room, the lights wentout.

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 637

If you didn’t move around enough you kept . . . I remember I was sittingthere . . . I was going My God . . . I’ve got six years of post-secondaryeducation . . . I’m sitting in a gym in the dark with three students. I’ve gotto be . . . what’s wrong with me. Why can’t I be thankful I’ve got a job.(Joan)

With few exceptions these teachers were provided with only basicequipment and furnishings. Desks were small, tables were inadequate,and computers, if there were any in classrooms, were often outdated orbroken. In one class held in a church, the class size was held to 12because the room could accommodate no more. Even then the teachercould not have the students work in groups because there was no roomto move the chairs. None of the classrooms we visited were suited to theneeds of the students; every teacher had to accommodate the inadequatefacilities. For many teachers, the poor facilities and lack of resourcesreflected the low priority of LINC learners and teachers.

These physical restrictions on teachers were compounded by the com-plexities of access to teacher resources. Where classes did not have dedi-cated classroom space, teachers had to pack up materials and removethem before another group arrived. As Petra said, “The only drawback isthat I’m not allowed to put stuff on the wall. Nothing but my calendarand my two maps. I’d like to be able to put up student work.”

Some teachers had limited access to photocopying; one teacher de-scribed what this meant:

You are barely allowed to make any photocopies . . . and we are constantlybeing threatened that we will be cut off if we photocopy too much . . . andthen we try to send so much to the print office, but then we are told wecan’t send too much to the print office. I was sending some chapters sothat they would have something they could work on through the week, wecan’t do that any more . . . we have a class set of the books, use the books,but they can’t write in the books, they can’t take them home. I have to goget the books every day. (Elaine)

Elaine’s comments were echoed by another teacher, who found that thephotocopying restrictions also limited how she taught:

We have a cap on how much photocopying we are supposed to do, andI’m always way at the top. They are saying you don’t need to make so manyphotocopies. Use the books or the transparencies, or whatever. But I needto give them lots of stuff. (Gina)

When planning their classes, teachers had to take the limitations ofspace and resources into account. Many teachers could not plan groupwork because they had no space for students to work. In some settingsthe constraints were the primary consideration when planning a class.

638 TESOL QUARTERLY

Another major challenge LINC teachers mentioned was the problemof continuous intake and multilevel classrooms, a situation that has re-mained constant in LINC (Cray, 1997). At larger sites, the problem ofmultilevel classrooms was mitigated to some degree by the availability ofseveral levels of LINC classes. However, particularly in off-site locationswhere the number of LINC classes was limited, multilevel classrooms andcontinuous intake were the norm. In one off-site classroom, I observed aclass of about 20 registered students which had literacy learners, LINC 1,LINC 2, as well as ESL levels, 1, 2 and 3.3 The teacher would juggle thesevarious levels by giving one group a lesson, leave them with an activity,and then move onto the next group, and so on. The biggest challengewas the group of literacy students with whom the teacher needed to workindividually while the students at the other levels waited for the teacherto have time for them. Although this multilevel classroom was an ex-treme case, the kinds of challenges this teacher faced were not uncom-mon for other LINC teachers who had to approach and organize theirteaching practices to accommodate multilevel classrooms. This situationwas complicated by the policy of continuous intake that required teach-ers to integrate newcomers into the classroom at whatever point in aterm they arrived. Teachers were also aware that LINC programs orclasses could be cancelled at the end of a contract if attendance fellbelow specified levels.

LINC teachers consistently faced low pay and lack of job security.Teachers across a range of programs were interviewed, and in almost allcases, teachers were paid for contact hours and had few if any benefits.As one teacher put it, “You get paid for your three hours and that is it”(Petra). Teachers were not paid for lesson preparation, marking, and inmost cases for any other professional development activity in which theytook part. As one teacher stated,

but when you look at your preparation time and your marking time . . . Ihave 3 levels of students, so quite often I will do 3 sets of materials for thisclass or two activities. When you look at the preparation time, I probablyearn below minimum wage. (Ida)

Many teachers echoed the statement made by the following teacher,

So for me as a LINC teacher it is not the benefits or security that I wouldget from a regular school system. But for my life . . . I have children, I havea husband who puts food on the table. I would not have this job if Ineeded to put food on the table. The security is not there. (Stella)

3 ESL students are provincially funded and are open to a wider range of students, includingcitizens, diplomats, and others.

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 639

Even though many of the teachers were not the sole support or theprimary wage earner for a family, their low wages did influence theirattitude about preparing classes. As one teacher noted,

I think what keeps me going is, I really enjoy the people I work with. Thestudents are really appreciative. I teach 15 hours a week and probably putin another 10–15 hours a week into lesson planning. Am I willing to putin more time into it right now? No way. Am I willing to go home and planlittle individual programs? You just get in there and do the best that youcan. (Joan)

Those teachers who depended on their LINC teaching salaries as amain source of income had to supplement their income with other work,which again had an effect on how much time and effort teachers put intotheir work. One teacher stated, “I have to supplement with licensed childcare in the afternoon. I used to have an afternoon class, but that is gone”(Rose). Another had a small business presenting “courses in self-development kind of stuff, spiritual stuff. I’ve done that for a long time.”As another teacher summed up,

If you are in this program and this is not your main source of income itis great. If it is your main source of income then you have to find anotherjob or get out of the field entirely. It is very unstable. (Petra)

In general the isolating and subordinating conditions Crookes (1997)describes can be seen in the teaching conditions of LINC teachers. Theactual physical conditions of classroom space and location combine toisolate teachers. As well, limitations on access to teaching resources, andmultilevel and continuous intake classrooms require teachers to altertheir teaching strategies. Low pay and lack of job security have a directimpact on how much time teachers can allocate not only to their teach-ing, but also to their own personal and professional development asteachers. It is under these constraining teaching conditions that LINCteachers must try to concretize within the classroom the LINC policygoals of settlement and integration.

Silver and Skuja-Steele (2005), in their comparative study of Englishlanguage instruction policies in five countries, found that teachers dis-tinguished between their microlevel goals within the classroom and mac-rolevel policy goals, basing their teaching priorities on their perceptionsof immediate learner needs and school expectations, which rarely re-flected a direct linkage to top-down or long-term policy reforms. Still, asSilver and Skuja-Steele concluded, teachers often reinterpreted policiesin ways that indirectly influenced classroom priorities and practices (p.123). Clearly, LINC teachers were also focussed on the microlevel con-cerns of the classroom, finding creative ways to balance the externallyimposed requirement of the benchmarks with what their students

640 TESOL QUARTERLY

wanted and needed within a range of contextual and constraining fac-tors.

Although the marginalization of ESL teachers as a result of contextualteaching constraints has been detailed (Crookes, 1997; Fleming, 1998),the centrality of LINC policy and its implementation as an organizingfeature of these teachers’ marginalization must be specified. As teachersmake the LINC policy-to-practice connection, LINC policy producesconstraints that limit their agency, constraints such as the isolated work-ing conditions and limited access to resources as a result of the contract-ing system for LINC programs, the low wages and cuts to professionaldevelopment support for teachers as result of chronic underfunding,and the problems of multilevel and continuous intake as a result of classsize requirements, among others. Therefore, commonly offered solu-tions for teachers to deal with teaching constraints, such as ad hoc work-shops, new teaching materials and resources or even new versions ofcurricula, can offer only limited assistance. Rather, addressing the con-straints teachers face in the teaching of their classes must begin by ad-dressing LINC policy and its implementation.

THE AUTHORS

Eve Haque is assistant professor in the Department of Languages, Literatures andLinguistics at York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Her research interestsinclude language policy and planning, and race and nation building.

Ellen Cray is an associate professor in the School of Linguistics and Applied Lan-guage Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Her areas of interestare language policy and planning and pedagogical grammar.

REFERENCES

Cray, E. (1997). Teachers’ perceptions of language policy: Teaching LINC. TESLCanada Journal, 15, 22–38.

Crookes, G. (1997). What influences what and how second and foreign languageteachers teach? The Modern Language Journal, 81, 57–79.

Fleming, D. (1998). Autonomy and agency in curriculum decision-making: A study ofinstructors in a Canadian adult settlement ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 16,19–35.

Hajer, A., Robinson, J., & Witol, P. (2002). LINC curriculum guidelines: Languageinstruction for newcomers to Canada. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto CatholicDistrict School Board.

Holmes, T., Kingwell, G., Pettis, J., & Pidlaski, M. (2001). Canadian Language Bench-marks 2000: A guide to implementation. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Centre for Cana-dian Language Benchmarks.

Jennings, N. E. (1996). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform andteacher practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 641

Pawlikowska-Smith, G. (2000). Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: English as a secondlanguage—for adults. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Centre for Canadian LanguageBenchmarks.

Silver, R. E., & Skuja-Steele, R. (2005). Priorities in English language educationpolicy and classroom implementation. Language Policy, 4, 107–128.

Stritikus, T. T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: Thecase of a teacher reacting to language policy. Journal of Language, Identity, andEducation, 2, 29–52.

642 TESOL QUARTERLY