The Teeming Mass: Prescriptivism in Education: Encouraging Biases Against Non-Standard Varieties?

Linguicism, language-based discrimination, remains a commonly accepted prejudice in society. Unfortunately, many experience it in their daily lives, but, despite its prevalence, it is unacceptable as its effects are deeply damaging, especially on children who can be exposed to this discrimination as soon as they enter the education system. Its presence in education has been felt for centuries and it is influenced by a variety of factors including; government policies, the implementation of these in individual schools, and the normalisation of linguicism in wider society.

In the past, linguistic discrimination in schools focused on whole languages, with speakers of Welsh and Irish being strongly encouraged or even forced to speak English. The most well-known example of linguicism in British schools of the past was the Welsh Not, an item used through the 18th 19th and early 20th Centuries to discourage and punish children for using the Welsh language at school. This punishment resulted in limited usage of Welsh by the population, with only 16% of modern-day students in Wales attending Welsh-medium schools. The Irish language too was repressed in schools, with it being omitted from the school curriculum until 1878, when it was introduced as an additional language to be learned after English, Latin, Greek, and French. Linguicism in these instances targets whole languages, promoting English as a better or superior language, having extremely negative effects on speakers of the languages facing discrimination. However, despite the hardships faced by both languages as a result of English colonialism, both still exist, demonstrating their resilience and the inability of institutions to fully control language.

More recently, governments have become concerned with the extinction of these languages, resulting in attempts to revive them and celebrate the diversity of languages which can be found in Britain and Ireland. Mudiad Meithrin, the group which coordinates the majority of Welsh-medium early years provision, have developed ‘Croesi’r Bont’ or ‘Crossing the Bridge’, a scheme created to help nursery age students learn Welsh faster. The programme aims to make the transition to Welsh-medium education more accessible, with 95% of the children participating coming from families where Welsh is not spoken at home. The Welsh government hopes there will be one million Welsh speakers by 2050 and Croesi’r Bont is playing a vital role in this. The programme’s success has inspired similar movements in the Basque Country and Brittany. With national government attitudes shifting, linguistic discrimination focusing on whole languages is no longer widely accepted. Instead, celebratory attitudes towards the national languages of the U.K. are being adopted, and nowadays, linguicism increasingly targets specific varieties of English over whole languages.

In the 20th and 21st Century, there has been a political focus on ‘correct’ language in schools. Margaret Thatcher was one of many Conservative politicians keen to allow all children to access Standard English, even if this was at the expense of other varieties, famously going as far as to attend elocution lessons to modify her accent for Westminster. The latest politician to gain infamy for his prescriptive attitudes towards language and education is the current Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove. Between 2010 and 2014, during his time as Education Secretary, he made changes to all levels of education, including introducing a Spelling Punctuation and Grammar test, as mentioned in my last piece, which expected children to understand terminology most adults cannot. Additionally, the wording of these tests labels features of some non-standard varieties as ‘errors’ requiring children to ‘correct’ sentences by translating them into Standard English. By suggesting there are certain ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ forms of English, Gove’s test, in itself a reflection of his attitudes towards education, shames children who use non-standard varieties while also promoting Standard English above all other varieties.

However, the government are not the only ones perpetuating linguicism, instead individual schools have taken language policing and promoting Standard English into their own hands. One way schools police language is by banning the use of certain words, such as in a West Midlands primary school, where “they was”, “woz”, and “It wor me” have been described as three of the ‘top ten most damaging phrases’, with a zero-tolerance approach being taken to students using them. All of the features on the list are aspects of West Midlands dialects, and their dismissal has deeply damaging effects on the primary school speakers this list targets. The school have gone on to defend this approach, saying they “value the local dialect but are encouraging children to learn the skill of turning it on and off in different situations”. While learning to communicate in Standard English is important, this dismissal of the children’s regional dialect only helps to perpetuate the idea that some varieties of English are superior. Schools have also targeted features of Multicultural London English, a sociolect with London origins now spoken all over the U.K. with notable speakers including Stormzy and Lady Leshurr. The widespread nature of these variety-based restrictions is captured in Waterloo Road, where a decision is made, in series 7, to ban so called ‘gang’ words, with the examples of ‘blud’, ‘brap’ and ‘sick’ being given. The justification for this is that the increasing issues with gangs within the school need to be dealt with, and by restricting the use of words the teachers think can be associated with gangs, they can limit communication between members. However, rather than accepting the restrictions, the students of Waterloo Road take action. Led by head girl Trudi Siddiqui the students tape their mouths shut, refusing to speak. This physical representation of how a language ban silences the student voice shows a recognition of what is being taken away from them and the importance of solidarity when standing against prescriptive initiatives in schools.

While the form linguicism takes may have shifted from whole languages to specific varieties over time, it remains poisonous and damaging, especially for the children school-based linguicism is often directed towards. As much as I hate to admit it, Thatcher was right about one thing; everyone should have access to Standard English due to its importance in communicating with others. However, this access, contrary to popular belief, does not need to be at the expense of other varieties. By restricting the language of children and suggesting their unique ways of using language are incorrect, the belief that Standard English is the only valuable form of English remains omnipresent in society.