In the paper that I presented at ARPCE I talked about the fact that when I started teacher training my mentor told me that an effective teacher is a reflective teacher. I would change that now, to something along the lines of an inclusive or ethical teacher is a reflexive teacher. Why? Because you must really interrogate your practice and notice when you are influenced by the ingrained deficit narratives that pervade our education system.

You have to get used to having uncomfortable conversations with yourself if you want to improve your practice and ensure your classrooms/workshops are places where everyone feels welcome and able to learn. You have to notice your thought processes and be prepared to challenge and unpick them.

Today I noticed.

I have been reading the guidance document for implementing the Reference Framework of Competencies for Democratic Culture (RFCDC) in Vocational Education and Training. I was coming at it from what I felt was a very open‑minded pragmatic view of citizenship education which I adopt in my classroom. Namely that citizenship sessions should have the purpose of ensuring that apprentices know the full range of ways in which they can participate in civic life and express their democratic rights, as opposed to trying to “manufacture or engineer a particular species of citizen.” (Lawy & Biesta, 2006)

However, that feeling of pride and assuredness in my practice fell away when I read through the model of competencies. There is one under the skills theme called Plurilingual Skills. I had never heard this phrase before. I understood it, but wondered why I had never heard it and why it doesn’t feature in our language in apprenticeship provision. Perhaps it does in wider FE, though I have worked here for a decade now and have never heard it before.

Plurilingual competence is defined as: the potential and/or actual ability to use several languages to varying levels of proficiency and for different purposes. (Beacco, J‑C. & Byram, M. 2007)

It’s not the same as bi‑ or multilingualism because it’s not about fluency, or mastery. It’s about using your whole linguistic repertoire, that would include dialects, partial languages, workplace jargon, heritage languages, Englishes, hybrid forms, vernacular etc. to engage meaningfully with others. Plurilingualism recognises and celebrates all of the different ways we understand and connect with each other through language and communication.

The only way I have ever really engaged with the idea of other languages in FE is through the idea of ESOL. Here we approach it from the perspective of how to overcome it as a barrier to learning. Of course, we must support apprentices to overcome barriers to learning, but what we shouldn’t do is assume a barrier exists because of a specific characteristic, whether that’s ESOL, working‑class background, refugee status, or anything else.

This hit me like the proverbial tonne of bricks. Because I consider myself to be a strengths‑based practitioner first and foremost, and yet here I am looking at something so sophisticated, flexible and adaptive through what is essentially a deficit lens. A kind of “this is a problem, how do we solve it?” thing.

Oof! How easily we reproduce the narratives we oppose? Very deflating.

I thought back to why I undertook a Trauma Informed Practice course earlier in the year. I had put myself on it because I knew I had apprentices coming into my class who were refugees. What I learned on the course was that 70% of the world population will experience trauma in their lifetime, including 1 in 3 people in the UK. I went on that course because I had assumed that the refugee students in my class had suffered trauma. However, the likelihood is that a third of all of my classes – a third of all your classes too – are made up of students who are trauma‑experienced. We should all be doing that training as a matter of course. But I had done it based on assumptions I had made about the experiences of students joining my class – just because of their refugee status. The intention behind it may have been well meaning, but the premise was deficit based.

The UK’s refusal to see plurilingualism is not accidental, it’s ideological and it is ingrained. It reinforces the belief that others must adapt to us, while we remain linguistically … immobile? Not sure that is the right word … perhaps immovable would be more apt?

The reality is that in construction, the people who build our world are using the skills of plurilingualism every day. When my apprentices talk to me in our monthly sessions it is clear that they work with people day in day out from all over the world. They interact with a wide range of cultural norms, languages, religions. However, they are not universally complementary, inclusive or tolerant of these experiences – which is our failure, a systemic one.

If we aren’t creating spaces in vocational education and training (including apprenticeship provision) for discussion‑based sessions where a variety of viewpoints, cultures, religions, attitudes, behaviours etc are presented, explored and made familiar – then why not?

If we confine the education of apprentices to the Knowledge Skills and Behaviours (KSBs) of their apprenticeship, if we only teach them things that make them useful Groundworkers (carpenters/plumbers/bricklayers/electricians) then we are preparing them for a job, not for life, not for active citizenship.

Another afternoon of reading which led to realisation, reflexion and unpicking … no wonder my literature review is taking so long 😊

---

References

Beacco, J‑C. & Byram, M. (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Executive version. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Council of Europe (2024). Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture: Guidance for Implementation in Vocational Education and Training. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. ISBN: 978‑92‑871‑9509‑8.

Lawy, R., & Biesta, G. (2006). CITIZENSHIP-AS-PRACTICE: THE EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF AN INCLUSIVE AND RELATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF CITIZENSHIP. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2006.00335.x

Stenhouse, Lawrence. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann.