Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
The policy and policing of language in schools
IAN CUSHING
Brunel University London, UK
ABSTRACT
This study investigates cases of language ‘policing’as educational language
policies, and the way that these are represented across different policy levels.
Focusing on UK schools and using discursive approaches to language policy
as a theoretical framework, I critically examine the motivations and justifica-
tions that institutions provide for designing and implementing policies
whereby nonstandardised forms are ‘banned’, and how these are reported
in metalinguistic discourse. Drawing on a range of data including media dis-
course, policy documents, teacher interviews and linguistic landscapes, I tex-
tually trace how educational language policies (re)produce prescriptive and
linguicist ideologies, often using metaphors of crime, and often using lan-
guage as a proxy for social factors such as academic achievement, employ-
ability, and standards. Overall, I argue that micro- and meso-level language
policies are a partial product of the linguistic conservatism as found within
current macro-level educational policy. (Language policy, language policing,
schools, language ideologies)*
LINGUISTIC DENTISTRY
In his critical description of a ‘deficit’approach to language policy and pedagogy in
schools, Ronald Carter likens prescriptive practice and ideologies to where teachers
and policy makers can come to operate as a ‘kind of linguistic dentist, polishing here
and there, straightening out, removing decay, filling gaps and occasionally under-
taking a necessary extraction’(Carter 1997:21).
Just over twenty years later, Carter’s metaphor continues to be a relevant framing
device for the way that language—particularly nonstandardised forms—is often
conceptualised and stigmatised within educational contexts such as classrooms
and policy discourse. In order to examine how this metaphor and its associated ide-
ologies about young people’s language might emerge in such contexts, this article
assumes that language prescription is part of language policy, adopting a critical
discursive approach (e.g. Barakos & Unger 2016a) in order to trace metalinguistic
discourse across policy ‘levels’, from government-produced curricula through to
classroom practice. Here then, critical involves unpacking ‘[linguistic] strategies
for maintaining social power’(Woolard & Schieffelin 1994:57–58), and discursive
involves examining the interplay between policy levels and the degrees of agency
© Cambridge University Press, 2019 0047-4045/19 $15.00 425
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Language in Society 49, 425–450.
doi:10.1017/S0047404519000848
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
that policy arbiters such as teachers, management, the media, and government have
(e.g. Ricento & Hornberger 1996).
In this article I show how an additional set of metaphorical terms, related to ‘po-
licing’, provide ways of describing practices where policy arbiters at different levels
suppress, control, and regulate stigmatised forms of English in the classroom through
oral or written ‘corrections’. Whilst recent sociolinguistic critiques of language polic-
ing have focused on multilingual contexts (see Muth & Del Percio 2018), there is
limited recent work within L1 education in the UK, and so this research offers a con-
tribution by investigating this through a critical discursive lens. The policing of non-
standardised L1 language in schools is an increasingly pervasive phenomenon that
attracts significant media attention, coverage that informs much of the discussion
in this article. Linguists have been quick to criticise such practices (e.g. Amir &
Musk 2013; Snell 2013,2018a; English & Marr 2015:210–17; Giovanelli 2016),
but this work has been limited to a small number of cases, and without detailed ref-
erence to the conservatism of current educational policy, the increased emphasis on
discipline and standards in schools, and the typically limited degree of teachers’so-
ciolinguistic knowledge. Hence, a critical discursive approach offers a way of inter-
preting metalinguistic discourse within a broader sociopolitical context, revealing
contact points between policy levels and possible reasons for why certain discourses
about language emerge. Throughout the article, I also highlight a number of connec-
tions between the UK and the US and argue that the same theoretical and methodo-
logical way of interrogating language education policies are appropriate for both
contexts. These issues are explored further in the following sections, and then
taken up again in my analysis of language policing practices.
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL
OVERVIEW
The research in this article employs critical discursive approaches to analysing lan-
guage policy. Three ‘levels’interact in designing, implementing, and enacting
policy: micro-level (i.e. teachers), meso-level (i.e. school management), and
macro-level (i.e. government produced curricula). As such, I draw on a broad
dataset that includes media articles, policy documentation, teacher interviews, and
linguistic landscapes in order to textually trace discourse about language policing
in schools across these levels and sources, and offer this as a contribution to critical
sociolinguistics and educational languagepolicy. My criticism is geared towards sys-
temic, macro-level policies and the reasons for which these come to be appropriated
and reproduced at meso- and micro-level by school management and teachers, respec-
tively. I rationalise this approach to unpicking policy discourse in further detail below.
My focus is on the UK, given that this has been the site of major recent changes
in educational policy, characterised by a shift towards an increasingly available and
explicitly conservative discourse about language, education, and nationhood (e.g.
K. Jones 2014). In addition, teachers’linguistic knowledge in the UK is typically
426 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
low (e.g. Cajkler & Hislam 2002). Since 2013, UK curriculum policy places a
greater emphasis on the teaching and learning of clause-level grammar—specifi-
cally, standardised English (SE) (e.g. Department for Education 2013a,b; see
Cushing 2018 for a criticism)—at the expense of discourse, variation, and nonstan-
dardised forms, and made explicit through policy discourse and grammar tests for
young children. I discuss these issues further below, before examining some of the
previous work on language policing in L1 educational contexts.
I then critically examine a dataset that is threaded together with discourse about
language policing. This dataset consists of curriculum policy documents, a set of
UK media articles on language policing in schools, and a set of interviews with teach-
ers, all of whom identified as having engaged with the design and/or implementation
of language policies. Manyof these teachers cited current curriculum policy as a pow-
erful mechanism that can control and regulate their classroom behaviour. Broadly
then, I argue that instances of language policing in schools arise as a result of
contact points between macro-level curriculum policy and micro-level aspects of
teacher knowledge, and that languagepolicing in schoolsis endorsed and legitimised
by the media, who engage with such policies in uncritical ways.
There are four key findings that emerge from this work, revealed through a crit-
ical discursive approach to language policy in schools.
(i) Educational language policies often (re)produce prescriptive discourse without
making links to wider structural issues, often using metaphors of crime;
(ii) Newspaper coverage of language policing tends to be supportive of prescriptive
policies;
(iii) Teachers often use current curriculum policy as a means to justify language po-
licing; and
(iv) Justifications for language policing across policy levels are often based on the
view that language is a proxy for various social factors, such as academic achieve-
ment and the maintenance of standards.
A CRITICAL DISCURSIVE APPROACH TO
LANGUAGE POLICY
Critical discursive approaches to language policy involve tracing trajectories and
contact points between different policy layers through the gathering and triangula-
tion of multiple data sources (e.g. Johnson 2009). Tracing connections across these
levels requires constant ‘interactional work’in order to unpick discourses about lan-
guage at macro-level and concrete classroom practice at micro-level (Heller
2001:213). As Johnson (2013b) suggests, discursive approaches foreground that
the ‘meaning’of a language policy is
not just derived from the policy document; it also emergeswithin a series of speech events within one
layer and ACROSS MULTIPLE LAYERS OF LANGUAGE POLICY INTERPRETATION AND APPROPRIATION. (Johnson
2013b:119, emphasis added)
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 427
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
This approach offers an affordance then, in that it allows researchers to capture im-
plicit-explicit policy ‘creation, interpretation, appropriation and recontextualisa-
tion’(Barakos & Unger 2016b:109), to consider both local and global decisions
and practices in language policy, to trace the motivations for these, and to offer so-
lutions or alternatives. Accordingly, it resonates with the aims of critical literacies
and critical applied linguistics more broadly, in ‘connecting language to broader po-
litical concerns’(Pennycook 2001:10) and tracing how power is distributed across
society. All policy levels, decisions, and arbiters are dynamic and heterogenous,
taking a wide range of forms that result in unpredictable and multilayered interac-
tions that can change over time (Mortimer & Wortham 2015), and so the ‘macro,
meso and micro’level distinctions are inevitably simplified and ‘convenient’
labels rather than denoting delineated boundaries (Johnson 2015:171).
Applied to the educational contexts that bear relevance to this article, the first
level is the macro-level—national policy in the form of government discourse, cur-
riculum documents, standardised assessments, and marking criteria. The majority
of UK schools follow the National Curriculum (NC), a prescribed programme of
study first introduced in 1988 in order to standardise classroom content. Although
the content of the NC has undergone various iterations since its introduction, crit-
icisms have consistently pointed to a didactic encroachment on classroom practice
that has curtailed teacher autonomy and deprofessionalised teachers (e.g. Clark
2001,2010; Gibbons 2017:61–83). I discuss the current version of the NC, imple-
mented in 2014, in closer detail in the following section.
The second tier, the meso-level, is the local policy of the school, taking forms
such as a department’s marking policy, a school-wide literacy programme, or the
languages made un/available for students to learn. One meso-level form in
particular—posters on classroom and corridor walls that serve to regulate language
use—is of particular interest here, taken as linguistic landscapes (Van Mensel,
Vandenbrouke, & Blackwood 2017), which are designed and deployed as a
system of control. Meso-level policy is typically shaped by macro-level policy,
due to the hierarchical ways in which power is distributed. For instance, the
current NC emphasises the learning of traditional, clause-level grammar, and so
schools have significantly changed their policies in order to incorporate this
(Cushing 2018).
The final tier, the micro-level, is the policy that individual teachers hold about
language use, typically manifested through classroom decisions about language
use. This too can take a range of forms, such as the oral or written ‘correction’of
stigmatised, nonstandardised forms, or the ‘banning’of phrases or words in the
classroom. I draw on teacher interview data to examine this level, acknowledging
that whilst teachers operate within the parameters set out by the meso- and
macro-levels, they undoubtedly retain professional agency and autonomy, and
are not just ‘cogs in the language policy wheel’(Johnson 2013a:99). Teachers
have the potential to be CRITICAL arbiters in the way that they interpret and imple-
ment meso- and macro- policy, in that they can ‘create a space where dominant
428 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
ideologies are interrogated, and, over time, dismantled with the goal of providing
equal language rights for all’(Alim 2010:227).
My interest in this article lies primarily in the WAYS in which the implementation
of meso- and micro-level policies are represented and justified in metalinguistic dis-
course at different policy levels.
UK CURRICULUM POLICY AND LANGUAGE
IDEOLOGIES
In the UK, NC policy is divided into primary (ages 4–11; Department for Education
2013b) and secondary (ages 11–16; Department for Education 2013a) and includes
both general and subject specific policies. The current version of the NC was intro-
duced in 2014 by the Conservative government, spearheaded by the then Secretary
of State for Education, Michael Gove, and included major changes to curriculum
content and assessment procedures. It continues to be widely criticised for its nation-
alistic ideologies, with monocultural and Anglocentric emphases on exclusively
British literature and propagandist history (e.g. Yandell 2017) and the promotion of
‘core factual knowledge’pedagogies (Gove 2013) over creativity and critical inquiry.
The NC positions SE as the most desirable variety of English, with students
being required to ‘speak clearly and convey ideas confidently using standard
English’(Department for Education 2013a:10). Teachers, too, are required to
uphold this, assigned ‘responsibility for promoting high standards of literacy, artic-
ulacy and the correct use of standard English’(Department for Education
2013c:11). Grammatical work is focused at clause-level, with no distinction
between spoken and written language, and little recognition of linguistic variation
or the social value of regional forms. One of Gove’s changes at primary school level
was the implementation of mandatory grammar, punctuation, and spelling (GPS)
tests, following ‘expert’recommendations that grammar could and should be
tested, on the grounds that there are ‘clear “right”and “wrong”answers’(Depart-
ment for Education 2011:60).
1
In these positivist tests, students are required to iden-
tify grammatical constructions in decontextualized sentences, and ‘correct’any
examples of nonstandardised language. For example, a question from the 2017
paper requires students to identify the correct form of the verb to be from a list of
options. One option, ‘we was waiting in the playground’, is deemed to be ‘incor-
rect’, despite this being a perfectly acceptable and ‘correct’form in many varieties
of English (see e.g. Cheshire & Fox 2009; Levey 2012).
A major criticism of the GPS tests and their associated policy documents then, is in
the way that they are underpinned by a prescriptive ideology and societal stigmas, with
the use of evaluative adjectives such as ‘correct’and ‘incorrect’serving to promote SE
and ‘right ways of speaking’at the expense of nonstandardised forms (see Cushing
2018). Language tests are political instruments, often deployed as a form of ‘sanction’
against the use and legitimacy of nonstandardised forms,and as one mechanism used
to narrow the curriculum, control linguistic use/knowledge, impose discipline, and
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 429
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
determine social order (Shohamy 2001,2006:93–109). At micro-level, teachers can
come to reproduce these ideologies in their practice, often using a ‘rulebook’meta-
phor, where language is, for example, a ‘set of rules dictating what people can and
can’t do with language’(Cushing 2019:163). Furthermore, curriculum policy dictates
that children learn about hyper-formal constructions such as the subjunctive, despite
this being an ‘archaic’form of the verb in UK usage (Huddleston & Pullum
2002:1000). Gove’s motivation for children learning more about grammar was
rooted in his belief that doing so would ‘make them more literate’(Gove 2014),
despite decades of overwhelming evidence to suggest that decontextualised
grammar teaching and testing does nothing to improve reading and writing ability
(see Hudson 2001). The grammar teststhen, are one vehicle through which prescrip-
tive language policies and agendas are imposed and justified.
There are remarkable similarities with the UK context and the US, which I
briefly outline here. These are most notably in the policies of the Common Core
State Standards (2010), which insist on children ‘demonstrating command of stan-
dard English grammar’(Common Core State Standards 2010:25), with limited ref-
erences to spoken-written differences and language variation (see Poza & Valdés
2017 and Godley, Carpenter, & Werner 2007 for a broader critique). Relatedly,
Doug Lemov’sTeach like a champion programme,
2
popular with many teachers
in the US and the UK, advocates the kind of linguicist, prescriptive policy found
across curricula in these countries.
Yes, you should correct slang, syntax, usage, and grammar in the classroom even if you believe the
divergence from standard is acceptable…when a student makes a grammatical error merely repeat
the error in an interrogative tone: “We was walking down the street?”…Then allow the student
to self-correct. (Lemov 2010:47–48)
Lemov’s‘quick-fix’discourse about language correction is not framed with any
reference to sociolinguistic theory or consideration, dismissing this on the
grounds that SE is the ‘language of opportunity’(Lemov 2010:47) and that
school is not ‘the time and place in which to engage them in a broader sociological
discourse on dialect’(Lemov 2010:48). His ideas and ‘teaching manuals’have been
championed by UK education ministers, including Gove and the current Minister of
State for School Standards, Nick Gibb (see Weale 2014), as well as the Teach first
fast-track teacher education programme in the UK.
STANDARDISED ENGLISH AND EDUCATIONAL
POLICY
SE has long been the ‘legitimate’language of UK education and the ‘mainstay’of
English teaching since at least the mid 1700s (Watts 1999; Crowley 2003). In
tracing this history, Watts reveals how prescriptive grammars were reconditioned
into pedagogical materials, with schools reproducing linguistic ideologies about
the ‘value’of SE that was underpinned by an assimilationist agenda. Discourse
from eighteenth and nineteenth century school grammar books revolves around
430 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
linguistic ‘purity’and ‘perfection’, a conceptualisation of language that has re-
mained remarkably steady when compared against current curriculum policy. Gov-
ernment education policy in the UK has consistently featured prescriptive discourse
about grammar (see Hudson 2016 for an overview). For instance, the Newbolt
Report (Board of Education 1921) assigns teachers the roles of ‘language regula-
tors’, in order to address ‘speech disfigured by vulgarisms’(Board of Education
1921:65) and ‘bad English’, which can lead to ‘bad habits of thought’(Board of
Education 1921:10). Attempts to challenge such prescription have come close—
most notably in the Language in the national curriculum (LINC) project, a £21
million teacher education programme between 1989–1992 led by Ronald Carter,
whose dentist metaphor opened this article. The LINC materials promoted descrip-
tive linguistics, offering students the chance to learn about regional variation and
the value of nonstandardised forms, but publication of them was banned by the
Conservative government on the grounds that they failed to pay sufficient attention
to SE, in a remarkable demonstration of macro-level authority and ignorance of lin-
guistic expertise (see Carter 1996).
Throughout these histories, a pervasive argument for the idea that SE is the
‘correct’register for schools is that of ‘common-sense’(Cameron 1995;J.Milroy
2001:535–39). The common-sense ideology of a standard language posits that
‘when there are two or more variants of some word or construction, only one of
them can be right’(J. Milroy 2001:535), and so automatically reduces language to
a set of polarised, binary ‘answers’, much in the same way that current primary
school grammar tests are designed. Educational language policies generally fore-
ground that the ‘right’variant is SE, and because linguists are often seen to
provide arguments that challenge such ‘common sense’views, they can be dismissed
from language policy decisions in schools, as was the case in the LINC saga, and the
case for the current curriculum (see Mansell 2017). In relation to media and policy
discourse, criticisms have tended to focus on this common-sense ideology, such as
Cameron (1995)whoshowshow‘scare stories about falling standards’can lead to
a‘moral panic’or ‘linguistic emergency’(Cameron 1995:89), which serves to
further legitimise prescriptive practices around nonstandardised forms.
SE is a variety with classist and racial ‘privileges’(e.g. L. Milroy 1999:178–92;
Rosa & Flores 2017), which are reproduced in US-UK educational policy and
society more broadly (e.g. Gillborn 2006), and crucially for this article, by the
media. Tyler (2013) argues that the UK government and the media actively ‘crafts’
the stigmatising and marginalising of certain societal groups (such as welfare claim-
ants), in order to garner public support for punitive policy reforms. As such, media
metalinguistic discourse provides an important lens through which language ideolo-
gies can come to be shaped and implemented. Because curriculum policy and media
discourse has typically stigmatised nonstandardised language then, it legitimises
acts of language policing under the benevolent guise of giving children ‘opportu-
nities’and ‘access’to jobs, academic achievement, and economic success. This
is taken up further in the next section, and in the discussion sections that follow.
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 431
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
LANGUAGE POLICING IN SCHOOLS
Language plays a critical role in reproducing imbalances in power and dominance,
especially when powerful policy arbiters have the ability to regulate and control the
language of others (e.g. Piller 2016). Applied to educational settings, instances of
language policing are typically enacted by policy makers such as teachers and man-
agement, who hold institutional power (Fairclough 2014) over students. When this
happens, it becomes a ‘macro/micro-level language policy-in-process’(Amir &
Musk 2013:152), whereby policy arbiters can appropriate and enact macro-level
policies in different ways. For instance, language policing can be in oral or
written forms, and can target any variable of a language, or an entire language,
such as the ‘Official English’(or ‘English only’) policy, designed to certify
English as the official language of the US.
3
My interest in this article is in the en-
actment of policies designed to target nonstandardised forms within a given lan-
guage (in this case, English), and how these relate to and are situated within
wider macro-level policies. Although my interest here is the policing of children’s
language, teachers, too, can be the targets of language policies designed to regulate
nonstandardised accents (e.g. Baratta 2018).
In the run-up to and post-implementation of the current UK curriculum, there was a
flurry of media articles reporting cases where schools had ‘banned’the use of non-
standardised forms. In a discussion of two of these cases, English & Marr
(2015:210–17) suggest that although the school policies were justified under a
badge of being ‘well-meaning’in seeking to improve literacy rates, they were reflective
of the schools’limited knowledge about language (English & Marr 2015:216), with
illogical decisions in banning specific words and misconceptions between spoken and
written grammar. Brady’s(2015) discussion of one case is geared around survey data
from students, the majority of whom identified as speakers of nonstandardised
English, but accepted the ‘legitimacy’of SE and any classroom sanctions that
imposed bans on their own language. The most critical of these studies is from
Giovanelli (2016:19), who orientates his criticism of one case using Gee’s notion
of d/Discourse (Gee 2012), to show how different levels of knowledge about language
can feed into different belief systems about how the world ‘ought to be’and how in-
stances of language policing are often enacted by teachers who have limited linguistic
knowledge. Indeed, studies have shown that teachers’linguistic knowledge istypically
low, as a result of few linguistics graduates entering into teaching, and a lack of gov-
ernment support in providing teachers with opportunities for professional develop-
ment (see Cajkler & Hislam 2002). This paper builds on this work by approaching
language policies from a critical discursive approach, drawing on a wider range of
data in order to better trace connections between policy levels, and to situate an under-
standing of language ideologies in schools within a broader context.
Taken together, these discussions of language policing strongly argue for
micro-/meso-level linguistic knowledge as a powerful force in policy interpretation
and implementation. Language policing in educational contexts has various
432 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
consequences, from negatively affecting students’confidence, motivation, and
desire to participate in classroom activities through to the stigmatisation of young
people’s ways of using language (e.g. Trudgill 1975; Cheshire 1982; MacRuairc
2011a,b; Snell 2013). In addition, sociolinguists have repeatedly made the case
that deficit attitudes towards speakers using nonstandardised forms can lead to
those speakers feeling insecure and facing threats to their identity (e.g. Bucholtz
& Hall 2005; Moore 2011; Snell 2018b).
DATA AND METHODS
In order to conduct a critical discursive analysis of educational language policies, I
draw on data from three sources representing different policy levels: education
policy documents (e.g. Department for Education 2013a,b,c), a small corpus of
UK newspaper articles about language policing in schools, and a set of interviews
with sixteen primary school teachers.
For the newspaper data, sampling was restricted to national newspapers that
focused on the policing of children’s language. Twenty-eight articles were collect-
ed, acquired through internet searches using the following terms: school,language,
dialect, and ban. Articles were published between 2008 and 2019 and covered the
political spectrum of the UK press, with eighteen being aligned to right-wing po-
litical views and ten to the left. Fifteen articles came from tabloid newspapers; thir-
teen came from broadsheets. There were seven ‘cases’of language policing that
were considered, each from a different school. The names of each school have
been retained, on the grounds that these are cases reported in national newspapers
and widely available online. In naming the schools here, it is not my intention to
‘shame’these institutions but to use media representations of their language poli-
cies as a springboard to discussing wider issues about language policing in educa-
tional contexts. Although the media plays an important role in shaping public views
about language, this data must be taken with caution, with stories often being sen-
sationalised in order to meet readership demands, which can raise questions of au-
thenticity. For instance, Jaworski (2018:346) suggests that the media ‘“pick up”
certain issues, however small, and turn them into stories, moral panics and
debates’(see also Fowler 1991; Cameron 1995). Nonetheless, the media provide
an important and powerful platform for the representation of language issues and
the kinds of linguistic ideologies they choose to promote to their audiences.
To trace connections between media discourse and micro-macro policy, I con-
ducted semi-structured interviews with sixteen practicing primary school teachers
from eleven different UK schools, between March and May 2018. All of these
had identified as being involved with language policies to some extent, either de-
signing one for their own classroom, or working under a meso-level school man-
agement one. They responded to a call for participants through my own contact
network of teachers, and none had received any formal training in linguistics,
which is typical for UK school teachers (e.g. Cajkler & Hislam 2002). They all
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 433
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
identified as White British. Interviews lasted between fifteen and thirty-five
minutes, focusing on teachers’views of language within the current curriculum,
their own beliefs about language, and the nature of their own language policies.
As such, they provided me with an insight into the ‘lived experience’of micro-
level policy makers (e.g. Garvis 2015), allowing me to better trace connections
across policy levels and in this way triangulating data to conduct the kind of discur-
sive analysis I advocated for in the opening sections to this article. All interviews
were broadly transcribed, and all names that appear in this article are pseudonyms.
The media articles and interview transcripts were first read, and then thematically
coded using NVivo software. Following Elliot’s(2018) steps for a flexible and prag-
matic approach to coding, I used a blend of deductive and inductive methods, begin-
ning with some broad themes about language policy and language ideologies, and
allowing new themes to emerge as I coded. For instance, ‘parent’codes (e.g. lan-
guage linked to other social factors) were then split into ‘child’codes (e.g. language
linked to employment and language linked to academic achievement). This process
generated a final coding framework, which was then used to check against all articles
and coding decisions in order to ensure consistency. The most prominent themes are
used to steer the basis of the analytical sections to follow.
ANALYSIS
Overview
An overall picture of the data reveals a dominant prescriptive discourse, with the
ubiquitous use of evaluative adjectives and adverbs such as ‘poor’,‘incorrect’,
and ‘[speak] properly’used to describe nonstandardised language. The articles
and teachers were largely supportive of the policies, often engaging with them in
uncritical ways without reference to systemic issues such as curriculum change.
As per discussions within critical sociolinguistics (e.g. Piller 2016), language
was frequently used as a proxy for other social factors such as crime, economic
prosperity, employment chances, academic achievement, and the maintenance of
social standards, all of which I discuss further below. Following Cameron (1995)
and Cushing (2019), ‘grammar’in schools was used as a metaphorical correlate
for a ‘cluster of related political and moral terms: order, tradition, authority, hierar-
chy and rules’(Cameron 1995:95), legitimising a causative relationship between
‘bad grammar’and ‘bad behaviour’.
Language policies took various forms, from explicit written guidelines (such as
the Teachers’standards and assessment criteriafor tests) to implicit de facto policies
that emerged during teacher interviews. One type of explicit policy was in the form of
posters, signs, and letters, taken here to be linguistic landscapes (Van Mensel et al.
2017), or even METAlinguistic landscapes, which were placed on classroom walls, cor-
ridors, and outside school gates, or sent home to parents. These landscapes varied in
their exact contents but tended to list specific examples of nonstandardised forms, e.g.
‘coz’and ‘innit’(Fishwick 2013), which were banned under the policy, generally
434 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
without any justification or details on what ‘punishments’rule-breakers might
receive. As such, they are a type of ‘surveillant landscape’(R. Jones 2017), in that
they served the function of regulating and monitoring ‘unlawful’behaviour. Theo,
a teacher in his third year of practice, talked about a surveillant landscape that he
had designed as part of his own language policy, implemented in response to what
he felt was a growing number of nonstandardised forms appearing in classroom dis-
course, and his felt need to, in Carter’sterms,‘extract’them.
I have a poster behind my desk that says I’m watching them all (.) sometimes I say the classroom is a
crime scene [laughter] it’s got that picture from big brother on it (.) but I made it say Mr Price is
watching your grammar. (Theo)
Theo’s poster is shown in Figure 1, which makes clear intertextual connections to
George Orwell’s1984,afictional dystopian world of governmental surveillance
and control.
Although Theo mitigates this through humour, I suggest that his surveillant land-
scape is representative of macro-level curriculum policy in the way that it serves a
regulatory function in controlling young people’s nonstandardised language.
FIGURE 1. A surveillant landscape.
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 435
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Received amidst an educational policy context that champions SE, the poster serves
as one artefact that constructs an atmosphere that is characterised by prescription,
and ultimately, linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas 1988:13).
In the following sections, my analysis is steered by the prominent themes that
emerged as a result of the coding process outlined above, beginning with metaphors
such as the ‘crime scene’, in how Theo chooses to describe a classroom featuring
nonstandardised language. My argument is not to suggest that children should be
denied opportunities to learn standardised forms of a language, but that a more
nuanced understanding is needed in relation to how, in educational contexts,
forms of a language may be related to meso- and macro-levels of policy power
and the ‘crafting’of language stigma and linguicism.
Language crimes
The process of language ‘policing’forms part of a CRIME metaphor, of which there
were sixty-one instances across twenty-two media articles, and seventy-six refer-
ences across sixteen interviews. For instance, in the following examples I have ital-
icised any words that are manifestations of this metaphor.
Posters will be placed around the school displaying the banned words while teachers have been told
to listen out and crackdown on rule breakers (Curtis 2016)
Banned words are put into “word jails”on classroom walls (Griffiths & Henry 2019)
Ipolice things pretty closely in terms of the language they use and the words they say (Rachel)
Following conventions from Lakoff & Johnson (1980), metaphors occur when one
thing (a ‘target domain’) is understood in terms of another thing (a ‘source domain’)
and can be represented using an XISYstructure, with x being the target domain and Y
being the source domain. The examples above then, are all realisations of the met-
aphor of THE USE OF NONSTANDARDISED ENGLISH IS A CRIME. Critical discourse analysts
argue that metaphors are ideologically motivated (e.g. Hart 2014), in the sense that
the source domain provides a ‘lens’through which the target domain is described,
and that different lenses can highlight or hide different aspects of eachdomain, such
as policies being ‘laws’, policy arbiters being ‘police’, and students being ‘crimi-
nals’. Over time, metaphors in discourse can come to be a ‘conventionalised’
part of a speech community’s repertoire (e.g. Semino 2008), with groups of
people converging on the same sets of metaphors. This notion is important when
considering the use of metaphor in language policy/policing discourse, because
it can lead to ways of thinking about language that become entrenched and legiti-
mised, such as the CRIME metaphor.
Other ‘nonstandardised’issues—all of which bear no relation to language use—
formed part of many of the policies, especially those reported on in the media, such
as ‘behaviour’and ‘tighter controls on uniform standards’(e.g. Henry 2008). The
indexing of language to unrelated social factors is a well-trodden rhetorical trick in
conservative discourse about language in schools (e.g. Cameron 1995:78–115), for
436 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
instance, here by Norman Tebbit, who in 1985 was the Conservative Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry, speaking on national radio.
If you allow standards to slip to the stage where good English is no better than bad English, where
people turn up filthy at school …all these things tend to cause people to have no standards at all, and
once you lose standards then there’s no imperative to stay out of crime. (Norman Tebbit, cited in
Carter 1994:22)
What has changed from the contexts in which Cameron and Tebbit were writing is
that in many present-day schools, policing is much less of a metaphor. Reports
suggest that around 5,000 UK schools have their own dedicated police officer, de-
ployed to ‘intervene when children step out of line …and patrol the school grounds’
(Paton 2009). The rise in police in schools, a direct consequence of policy initiatives
such as the Safer School Partnerships (Department for Children, Schools, and Fam-
ilies 2009) has been linked to a wider shift towards discipline, surveillance, and
control throughout society in general (see Henshall 2018). Related to this is the ref-
erence that many of the language policies make to a ‘zero-tolerance’approach to
nonstandardised language, such as by Kyle, who suggested such an approach
‘set the boundaries in terms of how [children] are allowed to speak really nice
and clear’. Zero-tolerance is a growing educational ideology in the UK,
4
originally
stemming from US border-force narcotics programs and then appropriated into
schools in order to ‘show no lenience for certain kinds of student misconduct’
(Kafka 2011:2). Figure 2 is an image taken from Awford (2014), showing a
letter sent home to parents with details of the language policy and a justification
for the zero-tolerance approach.
As well as police, in 2012 the UK government implemented a series of policies
designed to promote a ‘military ethos’in schools (e.g. Department for Education
2012). These included the opportunity for ex-military personnel to register for
the ‘Troops to teachers’scheme, a programme designed to fast-track ex-armed
service members into teaching, and the availability for military organisations to
sponsor and fund schools. This, the ‘militarisation of education’, has been
widely criticised for the ways that it legitimises policing and zero-tolerance behav-
iour policies, which language can be part of (see Chadderton 2014).
As first alluded to in the previous section, textual traces of the CRIME metaphor
were found in micro-level policy, in the interview dataset.
actually I think as teachers wehave responsibility for making sure students are speaking correctlyand
using the correct grammar (.) I like to thinkof myself as the grammar police and I’ll quite happily stop
the class make a siren noise and point out an error in somebody’s writing or whatever (Theo)
I do think they need to have rules to follow in their language (.) and so yeah I’m like the grammar
police and sometimes I feel like I’m on patrol watching what they do and stopping them when
they’re wrong (Claudia)
Both Theo and Claudia position themselves as language policy arbiters who adopt
responsibility for the way that their students use language. There is a discourse of
humiliation here (“I’ll quite happily stop the class …and point out an error”;“I’m
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 437
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
on patrol watching what they do”), using metaphors of policing (“grammar police”,
“siren noise”,“crime scene”,“patrol”), which resonate with the language used in
the media data and frame the classroom as a site of imbalanced power and
imposed sanctions, part of which is manifested through language policies.
It is important to frame these discussions as part of a wider criticism towards
meso/macro-level policy, and that teachers operate within a power hierarchy them-
selves. For instance, some participants talked about how their language use had
been judged by management against the Teachers’standards document (Depart-
ment for Education 2013c), part of which requires them to uphold and promote
the ‘correct’use of SE.
when I’ve been observed before (.) there’s a lot of times that I’ve been told I have to tell kids off for
not speaking properly (.) you know reallycorrecting what they were saying and trying to sort out their
ways of speaking and yeah (1) like I should be watching and listening for errors all the time (Ola)
In a sense then, the Teachers’standards is another form of a surveillant landscape:
not explicitly displayed on the classroom wall as in Figure 1, but an omnipresent,
FIGURE 2. A zero-tolerance language policy (from Awford 2014).
438 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
macro-level authoritative eye under which teachers are regulated and controlled (see
Perryman, Maguire, Braun, & Ball 2018 for a further discussion).
This section has drawn on textual traces of the CRIME metaphor across the three
levels of language policy in the dataset, showing how language policing at micro-
level is often part of a wider policy and ideology that serves to impose control and
power on young people and their teachers.
Employment, economy, and academic achievement
Thematic analysis of the dataset revealed that the most pervasive motivating factor
for designing and implementing prescriptive language policies was the idea that
using SE would lead to students increasing their employment and economic oppor-
tunities (fifty-nine references across nineteen media articles; seventy-two referenc-
es across sixteen interviews) and enjoying greater academic success (thirty
references across fourteen articles; sixty-three references across sixteen interviews).
The data revealed that media discourse and policy arbiters often established a direct
correlation between a decrease in nonstandardised forms and an increase in finan-
cial gain and academic achievement.
A secondary school has instructed its pupils to stop using slang words such as ‘hiya’,‘cheers’and
‘ta’, to enhance their prospects of landing a top job. (Shepherd 2012)
because ultimately students need to be able to use language properly in order to get jobs and do well
in life and you know (.) we’re here to show them how to do that (Ella)
School bans youth slang and sees exam results soar. (Henry 2008)
The link between language, employment, academic success, and economy was a key
part of the language policy imposed by schools, despite the fact that these were pol-
icies for young children, who in many cases, were a number of years away from
finding themselves in situations such as writing a job application or attending a
job interview. Language here becomes a proxy for the employability ‘enhancement’
of students, indexing ideologically related meanings (Eckert 2008) and as something
that was seen to increase their chances when ‘competing’against other people.
It is all about getting these children ready for that job interview when they can hold their own with
people from across the country. (Fricker 2013)
they have to use language correctly if they want to work and earn money and look after themselves
and (.) some of them have no chance I think (.) because of the way they use language (David)
really I see my job as preparing them for work once they leave school and language is obviously a
crucial thing in that (.) better grammar means a better job basically (Alex)
The data above resonates with Lippi-Green’s language subordination process
(2012:66–77), whereby ‘any speaker of a stigmatized vernacular is promised
large returns’if they adopt the standard. Lippi-Green suggests that education is
often the ‘heart’of the process (Lippi-Green 2012:68), where macro-level
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 439
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
authoritative bodies (such as a government) first claim control over language, then
move on to devaluing stigmatised forms and their speakers by holding up ‘conform-
ers’as positive examples and promising rewards to those who assimilate to the stan-
dard. Traces of this process can be found across policy levels, for instance, in
Michael Gove’s arguments that illiteracy ‘condemns’young people to ‘joblessness’
(Gove 2014), and in recent rhetoric that the primary school grammar tests are
‘working’in eradicating illiteracy (Gibb 2018), despite the narrow view of language
that they assess. Macro-level conceptualisations of what constitutes being literate
are fixated on the use of SE, and the idea that SE provides ‘access’to jobs. This
is despite research evidence to suggest that the presence of nonstandardised
forms in a person’s dialect has a minor impact on overall written and oral literacy
ability (see Snell & Andrews 2016 for a systematic review). What the policies do
appear to point to, then, is the ideological associations that SE carries in terms of
intellectual ability, and studies have suggested that teachers do indeed tend to eval-
uate nonstandardised forms in negative terms, despite student ability (e.g. Garrett,
Coupland, & Williams 1999; Godley et al. 2007).
Conceptualising language and language policy in relation to economic viability
and employment is underpinned by a neoliberalist discourse where language serves
the function of a commodity (e.g. Duchêne & Heller 2012; Park & Wee 2012; Hol-
borow 2015) and is aligned with the corporate world and its aims of capital growth.
Typically, SE is the variety of English that is assigned the greatest value on the lin-
guistic ‘market’(Bourdieu 1991). In this, the school comes to be a site of entrepre-
neurial activity, with meso-level policies serving to prepare and produce students
who are ‘linguistically fit’to enter into such a world (see Pennycook 2001) given
their competency in SE.
[Standard] English, it is widely perceived, holds the promise of material and social power …akeyto
accessing various institutions of power, particularly those of education, employment and govern-
ment. (Park & Wee 2012:186)
One school whose policy was covered in the media was Ongar Academy (in Essex,
south east England), who indexed formal language with employability in the title of
their policy, calling it ‘Elocution for employment’(Ongar Academy 2016). The
policy gained national media coverage in newspapers and Good morning Britain,
a breakfast time news-orientated television show. Drawing on a CONTEST metaphor,
the policy frames their pupils as ‘competing’and being ‘up against’‘Europeans’
and ‘non-native speakers who …may be better spoken than them’(Ongar
Academy 2016). To do this, the policy lists ‘improving the spoken word’and ‘en-
suring that students are corrected if they lapse into poor spoken habits’in order to
‘prepare students for the world of work’(Ongar Academy 2016). It is rather ironic
then, that the worth of oracy in UK education has been severely undermined in
current curriculum policy, with limited opportunities for studying spoken language
and sociolinguistics (see Clayton 2016:78–80). Even more ironically, Ongar
Academy’s policy defends macro-level policy by championing the kind of
440 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
cultural and language ideologies it promotes and the ‘threat’that nonstandardised
forms carry.
deeply concerned about the dumbing down of culture in the UK …children’s education and interest
in learning face unprecedented threats from the ‘culture of stupidity’all around them …Michael
Gove’s education reforms are being jeopardised because appearing dumb seems a better way to
make a fortune than working hard. (Curtis 2016)
The ‘dumbing down’,‘culture of stupidity’, and ‘jeopardisation’of the govern-
ment’s education reforms are equated to the use and presence of nonstandardised
language, with some policies citing the influence of reality television shows such
as Love island (see Griffiths & Henry 2019) and The only way is Essex (TOWIE)
on students’language. This was picked up on in various articles and interviews,
for instance:
SPEAK PROPERLY! Towie language banned from school so pupils can get a job (Anonymous 2016)
I think the kids (.) and the parents I guess (.) watch these programmes which are full of bad grammar and
slang you know (.) and they see that and think it’s OK to talk like that (David)
TOWIE is a popular programme depicting the everyday lives of a group of young
adults, most of whom use vernacular forms associated with the Essex region.
Other media articles stigmatise and ascribe negative qualities to Essex voices,
judging it to be the ‘worst’and ‘least attractive’accent in the UK (T. Jones 2013).
Nonstandardised forms named in the policy that are deemed to be ‘jeopardising’
macro-level policy reforms include shortenings (e.g. ‘emosh’), contractions (e.g.
‘ain’t’), informal lexis (e.g. ‘geezer’), and intensifiers (e.g. ‘literally’). Of course,
theseformsarenotexclusivetoTOWIE nor the Essex dialect, but transcend isoglossic
boundaries including region and age, and are likely to be features present inthe Essex-
based teacher’s repertoires who were instructed to enact the policy at micro-level.
To summarise this section, the indexical links between nonstandardised lan-
guage and academic success, employability, and financial prosperity was a promi-
nent theme across the dataset. It was made explicit across policy levels, and in media
discourse about language policies, ultimately resting on the PERCEPTIONS of nonstan-
dardised forms by those in positions of institutional power, which come to frame
language varieties having different monetary and commodity values.
Language spaces and borders
In this final analysis section, I briefly examine the place of language ‘spaces’and
‘borders’and their use as a justification for the implementation of language poli-
cies. References to this in the dataset included discourse about certain forms of lan-
guage being ‘permitted’in one designated space but not another, and where
boundaries between ‘home’and ‘school’were challenged (forty-nine references
across eighteen media articles; sixty-four references across sixteen interviews).
Spatial language was used across the dataset in order to talk about how it is ex-
pected that different spaces ought to yield different forms of language in terms of
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 441
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
accommodating the ‘appropriate’code—for instance, ‘turning it on and off in dif-
ferent situations’,‘using the right language for the right context’, and ‘formal
English in the classroom and slang in the playground’. In one article (Feltz
2008), ‘street slang’is conceptualised as a SUBSTANCE that has the potential to
‘seep’from playgrounds into classrooms, with teachers
forced to confront the first generation unable to cobble together the words or phrases necessary to
conduct a basic job interview in the Queen’s English. (Feltz 2008)
Some schools attempted to extend the policies to students’homes, either by teach-
ers contacting parents directly or by asking children to consider the way they spoke
outside of school.
A supporting booklet published by the school aims to get parents supporting the measure at home
(Press Association 2013)
If they start speaking properly at home …then I think that’s really important because they can then
bring that language to school and so yeah I’ve asked them to apply all they’ve learnt about standard
English to their home and things (Sara)
What such language touches on is the notion of REGISTER, namely that language
varies according to the social context and situation in which it is used. ‘Appropri-
ateness’and ‘context’were recurring themes used to justify policies, and although
these are indeed more in line with the aims of descriptive linguistics as opposed to
the prescriptive discourse of macro-level curriculum policy, they are still often used
in meaningless ways in order to give the impression of policies that are sociolingu-
istically astute (see Godley & Reaser 2018:34 and Fairclough 2013:33–56 for a crit-
ical discussion on language ‘appropriateness’). What discourse such as this
suggests, then, is that meso-level policy arbiters are unaware of the ‘situated crea-
tion of social meaning’and the role that language plays in this, in how different
social spaces can provide speakers with opportunities to draw on different linguistic
repertoires in order to build inter-group relationships and identity profiles (Snell
2018b).
Whilst linguists would generally not disagree with the reality of register, what
many of the policies as reported on appear to suggest isthat spaces—or ‘formal lan-
guage zones’(Fishwick 2013)—have clearly delineated boundaries, each of which
demands a different linguistic code. The disruption of these arbitrary boundaries
was seen to be a problematic issue, in the ‘risk’that it carried in terms of children
‘becoming confused’.
if children are talking in slang to their mates in the playground…when it comes to English lessons it
can be very confusing. (Dixon 2013)
yeah it’sfine to use slang outside or at home I think (1) but in my classroom I don’t really want that in
there (.) it’s not the right place to use that kind of language or bad grammar (Seth)
Many policies appeared to have contradictory or ill-defined messages about why,
where, or when different varieties of language were appropriate—with some sug-
gesting schools had ‘banned any slang or incorrect from [my] classroom but I
442 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
generally don’t bother if I hear it in the playground’(Claudia), or had ‘asked stu-
dents to use standard English inside the school gates’on the grounds that ‘the
street stops at the gate’(Shepherd 2012). Here then, policies define spaces as
having neatly defined edges, and attempt to apply the same idea to language and
its varieties. Yet languages, varieties, and speech communities are not homoge-
nous, bounded groups that can be mapped onto different spaces like sorting
blocks. Insisting on linguistic borders within language policy is an arbitrary deci-
sion that can legitimise practices of ‘belonging’and ‘not belonging’and establish
margins of exclusion—especially in educational settings (e.g. Valdés 2017). Rather
than seeing children’s language as something that ought to be policed and ‘border-
ised’, an alternative way of thinking would conceptualise children’s linguistic rep-
ertoires as flexible resources that can be used in multiple ways (Snell 2013).
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND
CONCLUSIONS
Language education policies are powerful tools that can impose sanctions and reg-
ulations, turning language ideologies into language practices (Shohamy 2006).
This article has critically examined policies that are driven by regulation and stig-
matisation, tracing textual points of contact across different policy levels and un-
picking the justifications given for their design and implementation. Within and
across each of these levels, language policing is a pervasive practice that policy ar-
biters engage in across all levels, legitimised in particular by the linguistic conser-
vatism and linguicism of current UK curriculum policy.
Policies that feature language policing index language to clusters of other
factors, most notably academic achievement, employability, economic success,
crime, and space. Language as a proxy for other factors has long been discussed
in critical approaches to language stigmatisation (e.g. Cameron 1995), language
rights (e.g. Wee 2011), as well as identities and variation (e.g. Eckert 2008) but
has received limited attention in L1 educational language policy research, especial-
ly through a critical discursive approach. In the sections above, I have examined
how micro- and meso-levels of policy appear to be shaped and governed by
current conditions of macro-level policy and given a platform through uncritical
media discourse that is lacking in sociolinguistic knowledge. I am not suggesting
that all instances of language policing are a direct result of current curriculum
policy or media discourse, acknowledging that this would be a gross over-simpli-
fication of how policy levels interact with each other (Johnson 2009). Similarly, I
am of course not suggesting that all teachers engage in such policies—there are
many teachers who resist the imposition of macro-level linguicism and employ
meaningful, linguistically democratic policies into their classrooms.
Whilst macro-level policies and media discourse have provided a platform for
linguicism then, they are not the sole reason for the existence of language policing.
Macro-level policies are one factor in a complex assemblage of mediating factors,
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 443
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
from the typically limited level of teachers’linguistic knowledge (e.g. Cajkler &
Hislam 2002), a general lack of criticality within educational linguistics (see
Godley & Reaser 2018), to other pressures faced by schools such as the ‘perform-
ativity agenda’(Ball 2003). In this, schools operate within a competitive, marke-
tised system of high-stakes regimes that include the cross-comparative judging of
schools in terms of examination results. Indeed, many of the policies examined
in the data were often reported to be implemented as a reactionary measure
against government inspection agencies and the Teachers’standards (Department
for Education 2013c). When schools feel pressure and are described using the eval-
uative discourse of inspection—for example, ‘failing’or ‘requires improvement’,
they can often implement ‘policies of compliance’(Perryman et al. 2018) that
are typically designed in order to appease government inspectors rather than
enact the genuine views of teachers and school management. As such, teachers
can be coerced into acting as mouthpieces for the UK government’s conservative
and prescriptive language ideologies.
After reading the media coverage of language policing, one might be forgiven
for assuming that young people’s written and spoken language in schools is char-
acterised by a high frequency of nonstandardised forms. Although such data from
the schools in this study is not available, it would certainly be surprising if this was
indeed the case, given that research has demonstrated that young people’s language
in schools makes use of relatively little nonstandardised forms. For instance,
studies in Tyneside (Williamson 1995) showed that nonstandardised forms made
up around 6% of usage, and similar numbers were reported for data from
London, Merseyside, and the South West of England (Williamson & Hardman
1997a,b). Further research is needed in order to better understand the impact, if
any, of nonstandardised forms on academic achievement. What the articles and
the policies do appear to be a form of, then, is a version of Cameron’s(1995)
moral panic and Lippi-Green’s(2012)subordination process, whipped up by
macro-level curriculum changes and the increasingly available presence of conser-
vative discourse and practices within educational policy and sensationalist media.
It is important to repeat that my criticism here is not specifically directed at teach-
ers but at wider systemic issues concerning the limited presence of linguistics
within teacher education, the lack of government funding in providing opportunities
for teachers to develop their own subject knowledge, and punitive language ideol-
ogies stemming from current government policy. Despite these challenges, many
linguists continue to engage with teachers in designing pedagogical materials, web-
sites, courses, and readings that focus on variation and attitudes to language (e.g.
Cheshire & Fox 2016; Giovanelli & Clayton 2016; Godley & Reaser 2018), as
well as the innovative content of the post-sixteen ‘A-level’English language qual-
ification in the UK, which has sociolinguistics at its heart (e.g. AQA 2015).
However, politicians have resisted much insight and expertise from linguists
5
(most notably perhaps in the case of LINC), and so engaging with policy makers
at the macro-level remains a challenging issue, especially when macro-level
444 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
ideologies about language are so caught up in maintaining standards, accountability
measures, and high-stakes assessments. Prior to A-level, opportunities for young
people to study sociolinguistics in UK schools are limited and have been reduced
by current educational policy—for instance, a popular unit at GCSE (ages fourteen
to sixteen) level in the UK about spoken language and language attitudes was
removed by Michael Gove in favour of ‘traditional’grammar and canonical litera-
ture (see Clayton 2013,2016). A useful avenue for future work would be for socio-
linguists to work with teachers in order to be more critically engaged with language
and offer solutions for change (see Alim 2010), as would be ethnographic work in
schools in order to trace the ‘social life’of language policies and better understand
the experiences of those who are part of them. Although the data discussed in this
article derives from a relatively small number of cases, it is highly likely that other
educational institutions have implemented language policies designed to monitor
and regulate language use. In addition, the connections between US and UK lan-
guage policies, which I have touched on this article, would also be of interest for
future research, as would a rigorous critique of the primary school grammar tests
and the way that they impose ‘control’(Shohamy 2001) over language ideologies
and pedagogies.
This article began by drawing on Carter’s dentist metaphor as a way of framing
how teachers can be coerced into operating as prescriptive language policy arbiters,
working within systems of macro-level control and standardsthat describe language
as it SHOULD be, rather than how it actually is. In applying a critical discursive ap-
proach to a range of data sources in order to understand how different policy
levels interact and relate to each other, I have shown how recent instances of lan-
guage policing may be a result of a synergy of top-down policy pressures and pre-
scriptive discourse on curriculum policy. Combined with issues surrounding
teacher education and the role of the media in re/producing misconceptions of lan-
guage, it appears that the ‘extracting’,‘polishing’, and ‘straightening out’of young
people’s language by powerful policy arbiters is a practice that perhaps requires a
different set of metaphorical terms: that of policing, punishment, and crime.
NOTES
*Thank you to Jenny Cheshire and to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful
comments on an earlier version of this article. Thank you also to Elisabeth Barakos for her comments
much earlier in the process, and to the teachers who took part in the interviews.
1
The review of primary assessments was led by a professor of politics, Lord Paul Bew. David Crystal,
a linguist at Bangor University, and Debra Myhill, an educational linguist at the University of Exeter later
raised serious concerns about the tests in their role on the review panel in 2013 (Myhill, p.c.). These were
not addressed by government.
2
Lemov is the managing director of ‘Teach like a champion’, with close links to the Uncommon
Schools network of charter schools in the US, and ARK schools in the UK. Both are known for their
strict ‘no excuses’authoritarian policies, with pedagogies geared around the teacher-led delivery of
‘core knowledge’. Theyare frequently held up as examples of successful schools byeducation ministers
in the UK.
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 445
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
3
See, for example, Lawton (2013).
4
For instance, Nick Gibb, the current Minister of State for School Standards, appeared on BBC tele-
vision on the 18 June 2019 to defend a schools’zero-tolerance language policy. He claimed that fillers
such as ‘um’and ‘err’are a ‘sign of a lack of confidence’and that such policies would allow students to
‘take part in a formal interview’in later life.
5
In June 2016, Michael Gove appeared on Sky News and declared that ‘people have had enough of
experts’.
REFERENCES
Alim, Samy (2010). Critical language awareness. In Nancy Hornberger & Sandra McKay (eds.), Socio-
linguistics and language education, 205–321. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Amir, Alia, & Nigel Musk (2013). Language policing: Micro-level language policy-in process in the
foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse 4(2):151–67.
Anonymous (2016). SPEAK PROPERLY! Towie language banned from school so pupils can get a job.
Daily Express. Online: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/665793/towie-essex-language-banned-
school-Ongar-Academy.
AQA (2015). AS and A-level English language. Manchester: AQA.
Awford, Jenny (2014). Ban on Black Country slang has improved reading and writing claims controver-
sial primary school which sparked anger by pulling up pupils on local dialect. Mail Online. Online:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791261/ban-black-country-slang-improved-reading-
writing-claims-controversial-primary-school-sparked-anger-pulling-pupils-local-dialect.html.
Ball, Stephen (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy
18(2):215–28.
Barakos, Elisabeth, & Johann Unger (eds.) (2016a). Discursive approaches to language policy. London:
Palgrave.
———,&——— (2016b). Introduction: Whyare discursive approaches to languagepolicy necessary?
In Barakos & Unger (2016a), 1–10.
Baratta, Alex (2018). Accent and teacheridentity in Britain: Linguistic favourism and imposed identities.
London: Bloomsbury.
Board of Education (1921). The teaching of English in England (The Newbolt report). London: HMSO.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brady, Jude (2015). Dialect, power and politics: Standard English and adolescent identities. Literacy 49
(3):149–57.
Bucholtz, Mary, & Kira Hall (2005). Identity and interaction: A socio-cultural linguistic approach. Dis-
course Studies 7(5):585–614.
Cajkler, Wasyl, & Jane Hislam (2002). Trainee teachers’grammatical knowledge: The tension between
public expectations and individual competence. Language Awareness 11(3):161–77.
Cameron, Deborah (1995). Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge.
Carter, Ronald (1994). Standard Englishes in teaching and learning. In Mike Hayhoe & Stephen Parker
(eds.), Who owns English?,60–77. Buckingham: Open University Press.
——— (1996). Politics and knowledge about language: The LINC project. In Ruqaiya Hasan &
Geoff Williams (eds.), Literacy in society,1–8. Harlow: Longman.
——— (1997). Investigating English discourse: Language, literacy and culture. London: Routledge.
Chadderton, Charlotte (2014). The militarisation of English schools: Troops to teaching and the
implications for initial teacher education and race equality. Race Ethnicity and Education
17(3):407–28.
Cheshire, Jenny (1982). Dialect features and linguistic conflict in schools. Educational Review
34(1):53–67.
Cheshire, Jenny, & Sue Fox (2009). Was/were variation: A perspective from London. Language Vari-
ation and Change 21:1–38.
446 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
———,&——— (2016). From sociolinguistic research to English language teaching. In Karen
P. Corrigan & Adam Mearns (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora, vol. 3: Databases
for public engagement, 265–90. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clark, Urszula (2001) War words: Language, history and the disciplining of English. Oxford: Elsevier.
——— (2010). Grammar in the curriculum for English: What next? Changing English
17(2):189–200.
Clayton, Dan (2013). Not rigorous, just wrong: Gove’s English language. Teaching English 3:54–57.
——— (2016). Attitudes to language change and variation. In Giovanelli & Clayton, 77–89.
Common Core State Standards (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and lit-
eracy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects. Online: http://www.corestandards.org/
wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards1.pdf.
Crowley, Tony (2003). Standard English and the politics of language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Curtis, Joseph (2016). Shut up! Geezer who runs Essex school is like ‘pupils must stop speaking as if
they were in Towie’.Mail Online. Online: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3565133/
Shut-Geezer-runs-Essex-school-like-pupils-stop-speaking-Towie.html.
Cushing, Ian (2018). Grammar policy and pedagogy from primary to secondary school. Literacy
53(3):170–79.
——— (2019). Resources not rulebooks: Metaphors for grammar in teachers’metalinguistic discourse.
Metaphor and the Social World 9(2):155–76.
Department for Education (2011). Independent review of key stage 2 testing, assessment and Account-
ability. London: Department for Education.
——— (2012). Routes into teaching. Online: https://getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/explore-my-
options/teacher-trainingroutes/university-led-training/university-led-undergraduate-training/troops-
bursary.
——— (2013a). The national curriculum in England: Keystages 1 and 2 framework document. London:
Department for Education.
——— (2013b). The national curriculum in England: Key stages 3 and 4 framework document.
London: Department for Education.
——— (2013c). Teachers’standards. London: Department for Education.
Department for Children, Schools, and Families (2009). Safer schools partnerships guidance. London:
Department for Children, Schools, and Families.
Dixon, Hayley (2013). Midlands primary school bans pupils from using Black Country dialect. The
Telegraph. Online: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10449085/Midlands-
primary-school-bans-pupils-from-using-Black-Country-dialect.html.
Duchêne, Alexandre, & Monica Heller (eds.) (2012). Language in late capitalism: Pride and profit.
London: Routledge.
Eckert, Penelope (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4):453–76.
Elliot, Victoria (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative
Report 23(11):2850–61.
English, Fiona, & Tim Marr (2015). Why do linguistics? Reflective linguistics and the study of language.
London: Bloomsbury.
Fairclough, Norman (2013). Critical language awareness. London: Routledge.
——— (2014). Language and power. London: Routledge.
Feltz, Vanessa (2008). I award top marks to this school’s slang ban. Daily Express.
Fishwick, Carmen (2013). London school bans pupils from using ‘innit’,‘like’,and‘bare’.The Guardian.
Online: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/15/london-school-bans-pupils-slang-innit.
Fowler, Roger (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.
Fricker, Martin (2013). Yow cor spaek lyuke that! West Midlands school bans pupils from using ‘dam-
aging’regional slang. The Mirror. Online: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/black-country-
slang-banned-halesowen-2791066.
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 447
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Garrett, Peter; Nikolas Coupland; & Angie Williams (1999). Evaluating dialect in discourse: Teachers’
and teenagers’responses to young English speakers in Wales. Language in Society 28(3):321–54.
Garvis, Susanne (2015). Narrative constellations: Exploring lived experience in education. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Gee, James Paul (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse. London: Routledge.
Gibb, Nick (2018). Our reforms to primaryeducation are beginning to work. Here’s the evidence. Online:
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/11/nick-gibb-our-reforms-to-primary-educa-
tion-are-beginning-to-work-heres-the-evidence.html.
Gibbons, Simon (2017). English and its teachers: A history of policy, pedagogy and practice. London:
Routledge.
Gillborn, David (2006). Citizenship education as placebo: ‘Standards’, institutional racism and educa-
tion policy. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 1(1):1–16.
Giovanelli, Marcello (2016). The value of linguistics to the teacher. In Giovanelli & Clayton, 13–24.
———, & Dan Clayton (eds.) (2016). Knowing about language: Linguistics and the secondary English
classroom. London: Routledge.
Godley, Amanda; Brian Carpenter; & Cynthia Werner (2007). ‘I’ll speak in proper slang’: Language ide-
ologies in a daily editing activity. Reading Research Quarterly 42:100–31.
———, & Jeffrey Reaser (2018). Critical language pedagogy: Interrogating language, dialects and
power in teacher education. New York: Peter Lang.
Gove, Michael (2013). The importance of teaching. London: Department of Education.
——— (2014). An education system which works for every child. London: Department of Education.
Griffiths, Sian, & Julia Henry (2019). Like it or not, they can’t stop saying it on Love Island. The Times.
Hart, Christopher (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives.
London: Bloomsbury.
Heller, Monica (2001). Undoing the macro/micro dichotomy: Ideology and categorisation in a linguistic
minority school. In Nikolas Coupland, Srikant Sarangi, & Christopher N. Candlin (eds.), Sociolin-
guistics and social theory, 212–34. London: Longman.
Henry, Julia (2008). School bans youth slang and sees exam results soar. The Telegraph. Online: https://
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2435923/School-bans-youth-slang-and-sees-exam-results-soar.html.
Henshall, Amanda (2018). On the school beat: Police officers based in English schools. British Journal
of Sociology of Education 39(5):593–606.
Holborow, Marnie (2015). Language and neoliberalism. London: Routledge.
Huddleston, Rodney, & Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, Richard (2001). Grammar-teaching and writing skills: The research evidence. Syntax in the
Schools 17:1–6.
——— (2016). The impact of policy on language teaching in UK schools. In Giovanelli & Clayton,
25–35.
Jaworski, Adam (2018). Language in the media: Authenticity and othering. In Sally Johnson &
Astrid Ensslin (eds.), Language in the media: Representations, identities, ideologies, 345–56.
London: Bloomsbury.
Johnson, David (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy 8:139–59.
——— (2013a). Language policy. London: Palgrave.
——— (2013b). Positioning the language policy arbiter. In James Tollefson (ed.), Language policies in
education: Critical issues, 116–36. London: Routledge.
——— (2015). Intertextuality and language policy. In Francis Hult & David Johnson (eds.), Research
methods in language policy and planning, 166–80. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jones, Ken (2014). Conservatism and educational crisis: The case of England. Educational Inquiry
5(1):89–108.
Jones, Rodney (2017). Surveillant landscapes. Linguistic Landscape 3(2):149–86.
448 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Jones, Toni (2013). Shaaht aahp! The Essex accent is revealed to be the worst in Britain as women admit
to swooning over a soft Irish twang.Mail Online. Online: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-
2266574/Shut-UP-The-Essex-accent-revealed-worst-Britain-women-admit-swooning-soft-Irish-
twang.html.
Kafka, Judith (2011). The history of ‘zero tolerance’in American public schooling. New York: Palgrave.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lawton, Rachele (2013). Speak English or go home: The anti-immigrant discourse of the American
‘English only’movement. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 7(1):100–22.
Lemov, Doug (2010). Teachlike a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the right path to college.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levey, Stephen (2012). Understanding children’s non-standard spoken English: A perspective from var-
iationist sociolinguistics. Language and Education 26(5):405–21.
Lippi-Green, Rosina (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the
United States. London: Routledge.
MacRuairc, Gerry (2011a). They’remy words –I’ll talk howI like! Examiningsocial class and linguistic
practice among primary school children. Language and Education 25(6):535–59.
——— (2011b). Where words collide: Social class, school and linguistic discontinuity. British Journal
of Sociology of Education 32(4):541–61.
Mansell, Warwick (2017). Battle on the adverbials front: Grammar advisers raise worries about Sats tests
and teaching. The Guardian. Online: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-
adverbials-sats-grammar-test-primary.
Milroy, James (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Socio-
linguistics 5(4):530–55.
Milroy, Lesley (1999). Standard English and language ideology in Britain and the United States.
In Tony Bex & Richard Watts (eds.), Standard English: The widening debate, 173–206. London:
Routledge.
Moore, Emma (2011). Variation and identity. In Warren Maguire & April McMahon (eds.), Analysing
variation in English, 219–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mortimer, Katherine, & Stanton Wortham (2015). Analyzing language policy and social identification
across heterogeneous scales. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35:160–72.
Muth, Sebastian, & Alfonso Del Percio (2018). Policing for commodification: Turning communicative
resources into commodities. Language Policy 17(2):129–35.
Ongar Academy (2016). School receives national recognition for new initiative. Online: http://www.
theongaracademy.org/school-receives-national-recognition-new-initiative/.
Park, Joseph Sung-Yul, & Lionel Wee (2012). Markets of English: Linguistic capital and language
policy in a globalizing world. London: Routledge.
Paton, Graeme (2009). Police officers ‘should patrol every school’.The Telegraph. Online: https://www.
telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4538019/Police-officers-should-patrol-every-school.html.
Pennycook, Alastair (2001). Critical applied linguistics. London: Routledge.
Perryman, Jane; Meg Maguire; Annette Braun; & Stephen Ball (2018). Surveillance, governmentality
and moving the goalposts: The influence of Ofsted on the work of schools in a post-panoptic era.
British Journal of Educational Studies 66(2):145–63.
Piller, Ingrid (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poza, Luis, & Guadalupe Valdés (2017). Assessing English language proficiency in the United States. In
Elana Shohamy, Iair Or, & Stephen May (eds.), Language testing and assessment, 427–40.
New York: Springer.
Press Association (2013). Head defends dialect ban in class. The Independent.
Ricento, Thomas, & Nancy Hornberger (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and
the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly 30(3):401–27.
Rosa, Jonathan, & Nelson Flores (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspec-
tive. Language in Society 46(5):621–47.
Language in Society 49:3 (2020) 449
THE POLICY AND POLICING OF LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Semino, Elena (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shepherd, Jessica (2012). Hiya pupils, please avoid slang, ta. The Guardian. Online: https://www.
theguardian.com/education/2012/feb/14/hiya-pupils-avoid-slang-sheffield.
Shohamy, Elana (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests.
Singapore: Longman.
——— (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (1988). Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In
Tove Skutnabb-Kangas & James Cummins (eds.), Minority education: From shame to struggle,
9–44, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Snell, Julia (2013). Dialect, interaction and class positioning at school: From deficit to different to rep-
ertoire. Language and Education 27(2):110–28.
——— (2018a). Critical reflections on the role of the sociolinguist in UK language debates. Language in
Society 47(3):368–74.
——— (2018b). Solidarity, stance and class identities. Language in Society 47(5):665–91.
———, & Richard Andrews (2016). To what extent does a regional dialect and accent impact on the
development of reading and writing skills? Cambridge Journal of Education 47(3):297–313.
Trudgill, Peter (1975). Accent, dialect and the school. London: Edward Arnold.
Tyler, Imogen (2013). Revolting subjects: Social abjection and resistance in neoliberal Britain. London:
Zed Books.
Valdés, Guadalupe (2017). Entry visa denied: The construction of symbolic language borders in educa-
tional settings. In Ofelia García, Nelson Flores, & Massimiliano Spotti (eds.), The Oxford handbook
of language and society, 321–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Mensel, Luk; Mieke Vandenbrouke; & Robert Blackwood (2017). Linguistic landscapes. In
Ofelia García, Nelson Flores, & Massimiliano Spotti (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language
and society, 423–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Watts, Richard (1999). The social construction of standard English: Grammar writers as a ‘discourse
community’. In Tony Bex & Richard Watts (eds.), Standard English: The widening debate,
40–68. London: Routledge.
Weale, Sally (2014). The American who wrote Britain’s latest teaching bible. The Guardian. Online:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/12/american-wrote-classroom-bible-doug-lemov.
Wee, Lionel (2011). Language without rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williamson, John (1995). Canny writers: Tyneside dialect and the writing of secondaryschool students.
Educational Studies 21(1):3–12.
———, & Frank Hardman (1997a). To purify the dialect of the tribe: Childrens’use of nonstandard
dialect grammar in writing. Educational Studies 23:157–68.
———,&——— (1997b). Those terrible marks of the beast: Nonstandard dialect and children’s
writing. Language and Education 11:287–99.
Woolard, Kathryn, & Bambi Schieffelin (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology
23:55–82.
Yandell, John (2017). Culture, knowledge and power: What the Conservatives have learnt from E. D.
Hirsch. Changing English 24(3):246–52.
(Received 7 March 2019; revision received 3 July 2019;
accepted 30 July 2019; final revision received 31 July 2019)
Address for correspondence:
Ian Cushing
Department of Education
Brunel University London
Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK
ian.cushing@brunel.ac.uk
450 Language in Society 49:3 (2020)
IAN CUSHING
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000848 Published online by Cambridge University Press
