The Inclusion-Exclusion Nexus in Research on LINC Programs

Studies examining the LINC program have been prolific and wide-ranging since its inception. They have critically interrogated issues of program aims, teaching ideologies & practices, curriculum contents, and accessibility, among others. LINC studies can roughly be divided into those examining pedagogical practices and ideologies and those focusing on curricular issues. I have particularly chosen to highlight those which discuss the role of structural factors in obfuscating the social integrationist aims of such programs, as these are more uncommon.

With reference to teaching and teaching culture, studies have pointed to the need for more self-reflection and critical thinking skills among teachers as well as the re-examination of teacher roles leading to the development of empowering educator-learner partnerships (Sauvé 1996, Khalideen 1998, James 2000, Ilieva 2001). They have further exposed structural obstacles affecting how programs are conceived and delivered.

One such obstacle concerns the marginalization and disempowerment of teachers within the program. Richardson’s qualitative study (in Pinet 2006) based on LINC teacher interviews attests to teacher disenfranchisement from decisions affecting LINC program mandates and curriculum development. Haque & Cray (2007), in a study examining the situation of ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers found that the latter often garner lower wages, are insufficiently resourced and have limited opportunities for professional development in transitory workplaces. As a result, few teachers have time to develop “disruptive” pedagogies fostering critical citizenship and subsequently rely heavily on materials that are superficially and essentializingly Canadian. This echoes Richardson’s findings (in Pinet 2006) which demonstrated that teachers from the dominant culture had internalized myths about Canada’s “tolerant”

multiculturalism preventing them from thinking critically on inclusion and subsequently failing to validate student experiences of racism and

13 Portions of this discussion have been adapted from Pötzsch, T. (2018). Assimilation vs.

Inclusion: An Anti-Oppressive Perspective on the Experiences of Participants in Integration Educations. In A. A. Alemanji (Ed). Antiracism Education: In and beyond schools.

Palgrave Macmillan Books

discrimination. Cervatiuc and Ricento’s (2012) study examining the

“hidden curriculum” of unstated norms, values and beliefs guiding teachers and teaching, complements such findings. It concludes that the “hidden curriculum” was either reflected in teacher indifference to migrant problems or the idyllic belief that migrants face no challenges borne of a blinkered, overly positive view of Canadian society. As a consequence, critical thinking on social issues related to student lives was not promoted, learners had little input in selecting topics for discussion and were encouraged to adapt to society.

Research on the aims and usage of LINC curricula and how these reflect a particular integration ideology has also yielded interesting conclusions. Thomson and Derwing (2004) point to the lack of a participatory citizenship orientation in LINC, where a predominant focus on language proficiency often precludes opportunities for social inclusion.

Their recommendations in promoting “participation” include facilitating migrant students’ social networking possibilities and sharing information on successful inclusion programs between various governmental institutions. Brian Morgan (2002) in a critical study of LINC curricula emphasizes a shift towards topics of identity politics as well as social and community engagement to challenge inequitable power relations outside of the classroom. This transformative pedagogy is also espoused by Robert Pinet (2007) whose research analyzes LINC curricular materials complemented by staff interviews. His findings like those of James (2000) expose a discursive discrimination (Boréus 2006) present in the clear imbalance between narrow interpretations of Canadiana vs. other curricular materials reflecting cultural diversity and students’ migrant experiences. According to these studies, the conspicuous absence of references to minority groups reflects the general curricular discourse instead of being a one-off omission in an instructional text. Related studies also throw a critical spotlight on LINC’s curricular foundation, namely the Portfolio Based Learning Assessments (PBLA) which theoretically envision a collaborative approach between educators and students in individualizing learning by collecting and evaluating evidence of competencies in individual portfolios. However, findings by Fox (2014), Desyatova (2018) and Drew and Mudzingwa (2018) among others, indicate that PBLA’s inclusive potential has been coopted by the evidence-based ethos of New Public Management thereby turning it

into an assessment-bloated, teacher-centered process that renders learners passive, multiplies instructor workloads and ironically reduces learner decision-making on portfolio content, all in the name of increasing

“accountability.” These studies conclude that PBLA’s therefore undermine the quality of language learning and teaching.

Tara Gibb’s (2008) study of ESL and CLB (Canadian Language Benchmark) documents and curricular discourses situated in employment program contexts concluded that these do not take into consideration migrant students’ multiple subjectivities. She argues that newcomers to Canada ought not to be portrayed or treated merely as potential workers useful for fueling the Canadian or global economy but that they are also

“parents, spouses, community members, politically engaged citizens, sometimes survivors of war and poverty – subjectivities that cannot be parked at the door of the classroom” (Ibid, p.330). She exhorts policymakers and educators to be wary of inscribing processes that reduce learning to an individualized, psychologized process and to confront the sociohistorical structures and policies that normalize linguicism and learner deficit. In addition, she argues that so-called pragmatic educational policies outlining the prescribed skills and standards migrant workers are to

“perform,” mask whose knowledge is to be adopted and performed.

Instead, she advocates collective responses in addressing structural inequities that includes making visible the ways in which elites are absolved from this responsibility. Gibb suggests that exploring the effecting traces of Canada’s colonial history, which “continues to position non-native English or French speakers as Other, should be considered in the policy-making process for adult language learning” (Ibid, p.322).

In another study of how of critical citizenship for social inclusion is conceptualized within CLB curricula, Brian Morgan (2009) argues that the focus on migrant language learner’s rights and responsibilities pertains mainly to them being good consumers. Utilizing pedagogical methods such as critical narrative inquiry, textual juxtapositions, teacher talk, and the use of multimodal resources, Morgan advocates a type of critically inclusive citizenship practice which foregrounds the complex negotiations of power in the positioning of migrant-subjects. He argues, that student awareness is heightened by facilitating oppositional readings and practices around

dominant constructions of nation-state citizenship. By reconnecting their everyday life experiences in work and schooling within this framework of hierarchical power relations, migrant learners move from their positionings as object to those of subject. Douglas Fleming’s (2008) interview-based study also looks at conceptions of citizenship as described by migrant students enrolled in a LINC program. It shows that they understood “being Canadian” primarily in legalistic terms. Their conceptions centered on rights, adherence to law and respect for a hierarchical view of the cultural mosaic instead of on citizenship as a participationist, co-created and shifting process which involves them as subjects with agency.

Turning to the impacts of structural factors which circumscribe migrant students’ learning from beyond the walls of the school; Gill and Gormley (2007) in a focus group study of students and teachers involved in a LINC program in Hamilton, Ontario found that family obligations, financial and work concerns were frequently cited by migrant learners as tangible barriers to accessing LINC programs. Suggestions for improvement include students receiving income supplements and the extension of support services within LINC schools to address students’ unique academic and personal needs. The study also explores a gender-sensitive perspective by acknowledging the unique challenges facing female newcomers. It found that LINC eligibility rules regarding Canadian citizenship are forcing mothers with small children to choose between becoming Canadians or attending LINC classes with free child-care. Because Canadian citizens are ineligible for integration education programs, some migrant mothers were opting for LINC with free childminding instead of applying for citizenship which would exclude them from both program access and childcare. The study thus calls for revisiting these eligibility rules.

Lastly, in examining how LINC programs support or obfuscate the social inclusion of students with previous professional backgrounds within the labour market, Peter Grant (2007), in a qualitative interview-based study with migrant professionals, found that LINC must be complemented with more tailored programs focused on providing advanced language training for learner’s specific needs. Ann Brooks (2009) study of best practices within workplace integration programs offers other practical suggestions for improvement which include providing on-site language and

communication skills training offered by employers. These LINC specific studies echo conclusions on strategies for work-life inclusion of migrants in Canada arrived at by Gibb (2015), Slade (2015), and Guo (2015).

3.4 THE INCLUSION-EXCLUSION NEXUS IN