An exploration of school communication approaches for newly arrived EAL students: applying three dimensions of organisational communication theory

Abstract

This article explores the modes of school communication associated with language and cultural diversity, demonstrating how organisational communication theory can be applied to the analysis of schools’ communication responses to the presence of pupils who have English as an additional language (EAL). The article highlights three analytical dimensions: the external factors influencing school communication systems; communication models reflected in school structures; and the content of communication between stakeholders. An exploratory study of a primary and a secondary school in the East of England, involving 32 semi-structured interviews with school managers, teachers, EAL staff, parents and newly arrived Eastern European students, reveals the interactional and transactional models of communication in the primary school, while the secondary school frequently used a linear approach. Communication in both schools showed a lack of information on EAL students and their parents, hindering a sustained outreach and empowering partnership, and possibly placing these students at a disadvantage.

Keywords:

• School/teacher communication
• migration
• inclusion
• EAL students

Acknowledgements

The views expressed here are those of the authors alone. We are grateful to the research team for their support on this project and thank the teachers, parents and students in the two schools for giving us their time and insights.

Notes

1. Unless stated otherwise the term ‘parents’ includes carers and refers to parents of EAL students.

2. EAL is a concept developed in the English context and refers to ‘all pupils whose first language is not English, but who are living and attending schools in England’ (see Arnot et al., 2014, p. 12). Other terms are used in the English context (e.g. English as a second language, ESL or English for Speakers of Other Languages, ESOL) and in different countries (e.g. English Language Learner, ELL, in the United States) (ibid.).

3. A8 countries: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

4. Five non-EAL students were recruited to understand the social interaction between EAL and non-EAL students. This area will not be included in this paper.

5. The number of current pupils from A8 countries is not comparable with the number of immigrant pupils who entered schools in inner-city areas, such as London, Birmingham and Manchester, during the 1960s.

6. Informal communication between staff, EAL pupils and teachers is another aspect regarding the EAL communication process of both schools, but will not be investigated further in this paper

7. The awareness of transnationalisation is also relevant for the higher education context including teacher training (see Schneider, 2013).