Challenging Social Injustice in SuperdiverseContexts Through Activist LanguagesEducation

2

Terry Lamb, Aniko Hatoss, and Shirley O’Neill

ContentsIntroduction: Mobility and Superdiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Challenge 1: From Exclusion to Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Challenge 2: Enhancing Successful Integration Through Languages Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Policy Responses 1: Multicultural and Multilingual Education Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Policy Responses 2: Community Languages and Ethnic Schools – The Case of Australia . . . . 46Policy Responses 3: Anti-racist Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Policy Responses 4: Citizenship and the Monolingual Mind-Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Policy Responses 5: New Spaces of Multilingualism in Education and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Strategy 1: A Paradigm Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Strategy 2: Bottom-Up Language Planning Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Strategy 3: Education for Global Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Strategy 4: Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Strategy 5: Service Learning and Activist Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Strategy 6: Toward an Activist Languages Education Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

AbstractIn a current world of rapid change and immense global mobility, communities areexperiencing unprecedented increases in population diversity that have dramati-cally heightened the challenge of ensuring social justice for linguistic minorities,

T. LambWestminster University, London, UKe-mail: T.Lamb@westminster.ac.uk

A. HatossUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australiae-mail: a.hatoss@unsw.edu.au

S. O’Neill (*)University of Southern Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australiae-mail: Shirley.O'Neill@usq.edu.au

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_46

33

including migrants, refugees, and people on the move, with implications forsociety as a whole. This chapter explores the rhetoric of related policies andpractices and the ways in which they respond to the needs of superdiversecommunities. The cases of the UK, Europe, and Australia, which all claim theirmulticultural status and multiculturalism as an important community resource, arediscussed. Through an exploration of current research, the effectiveness oflanguages education policy and planning (LPP) is critiqued to provide a newparadigm that has the capacity to bring attention to and eliminate social injusticein linguistically diverse communities. The chapter argues for the nurturing of newspaces of language use that challenge the monolingual habitus and which canengage the collective autonomy of communities themselves. It conceptualizeshow activist languages education can build community capacity and achievesocially just outcomes, thus simultaneously providing a better space for multilin-gualism and a foundation for peace.

KeywordsActivist languages education · Languages education policy and planning ·Multiculturalism · Multilingualism · Social justice · Superdiversity

Introduction: Mobility and Superdiversity

This chapter’s argument presents a call to action to address social injusticespresent in superdiverse contexts. It critiques the rhetoric of related policies,curriculum, pedagogy, and practices highlighting the need for an urgent paradig-matic shift to reform education and to achieve more socially just outcomes. Itchallenges the success of multiculturalism as claimed by the official policies ofcountries such as the UK, other European countries, and Australia, drawingattention to the need for change to ensure social inclusion. The discussion is setin the context of some of the grand challenges that current western societies arefacing partly in relation to the increased levels of linguistic diversity connected tothe mobility of linguistically and ethnically diverse populations. This inwardmobility encompasses all types of migration, such as economic migrants,sojourners, refugees, and asylum seekers, acknowledging that the latter two aregrappling with multiple forms of disadvantage. Sydney and London are two globalcities experiencing an unprecedented growth of linguistic diversity. This diversityis shaped by global migration flows, a phenomenon which is long-standing butnevertheless attracting much policy attention of late owing to the increased levelsof forced migration particularly from the conflict zones of the Middle East andparts of Africa (Faiola, 2015; King’s College London, 2015).

While migration is not new, the volume and nature of peoples’ movements havechanged dramatically in the era of globalization. Europe is currently experiencing itslargest volume of inward migration (Batsaikhan, Darvas, & Raposo, 2018; UnitedNations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2017). According to theUnited Nations Refugee Agency UNHCR, there are currently 68.5 million people

34 T. Lamb et al.

displaced worldwide, and over 44,400 people are forced to leave their homes everyday because of conflict or persecution (UNHCR, 14 August, 2018). While 85% ofthe world’s displaced people are resettled in so-called underdeveloped or developingcountries (UNHCR, 14 August, 2018: http://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html), significant and increasing numbers of refugees and asylum seekers areseeking resettlement in Western countries, with the USA, Canada, EU states, andAustralia at the forefront (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018).

For Bauman (2011), modern migration consists of three phases. Following thefirst phase, which consisted of colonial migration from Europe, the present contextappears to be straddling the second phase (migration to the West of previouslycolonized populations) and the third phase (the “age of diasporas”) (p. 35). Baumandescribes this third phase as “an infinite archipelago of ethnic, religious and linguis-tic settlements, heedless of the pathways marked out and paved by the imperial/colonial episode and steered instead by the logic of the global redistribution of livingresources and the chances of survival peculiar to the current stage of globalisation”(p. 35). Such migratory flows have led to highly complex and dynamic social,demographic, and lingua-cultural changes, particularly in cities.

Based on his research in London, Vertovec (2007) coined the term “super-diversity” as a way of describing the “diversification of diversity” (Rampton,Blommaert, Arnaut, & Spotti, 2015) that characterizes such urban spaces. Thoughcritiqued by Rampton et al. (2015) as a largely descriptive construct, the focus ofsuperdiversity is not just on diversification of ethnic groups but also within ethnicgroups as well as the general population (involving, e.g., variation on the basis ofgeneration, gender, class, age, language variety). This lends itself to a much-needed,more complex, analysis of a city than existing theorization, which has tended to beconcerned with the extent to which “minorities” integrate into a “majority” group,would allow (Crul, 2016). It also acknowledges that many of the so-called migrantshave not migrated at all but are from families who migrated generations ago.Wessendorf (2015, p. 6) cites Vertovec (2012) to help clarify terminology and definesuperdiversity:

While the notion of super-diversity has been picked up across various academic disciplinesto describe these processes of differentiation and their consequences in urban settings acrossthe world, the term “diversity” has also seen an unprecedented proliferation in public andcorporate language and discourse (Vertovec, 2012). I here refer to “diversity” in regard to“multiple modes of social differentiation and fragmentation” which are “re-ordering soci-ety,” economically, socially and culturally. (Vertovec, 2012, p. 308)

Superdiversity brings not only a multiplicity of languages and language varietiesto live side by side in a city, but they can also be found entangled in complexlinguistic repertoires, usages, and relationships; Lamb (2015, p. 3) describes them as:“palimpsestic relationships between [. . .] diversely plurilingual people, [which]move the field on to new ways of defining language use in what might be calledpost-multilingual cities.” Explorations of such contexts have led to the developmentof new constructs such as polylanguaging (Jørgensen, Karrebæk, Madsen, &Møller,2011) and metrolingualism (Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015), building on more localized

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 35

studies of translanguaging practices, described by Garcia (2009, p. 45) as “multiplediscursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of theirbilingual worlds.” These contexts are further explored by various researchers,including Blackledge et al. (2018) and Li Wei (2011). In particular, Blackledge etal. (2018, p. 3) advocate examining issues of social injustice in relation to super-diversity through a sociolinguistic lens. Furthermore, they point out that:

Superdiversity departs from diversity as a descriptive, theoretical, methodological andpractical term (Meissner & Vertovec, 2015). In doing so, it seeks to critique the ideologicaland structural apparatus of neoliberalism, to address inequality in all its forms, to situate itsanalysis historically, to be adaptable to different global contexts and temporal scales, and tohave practical application to improve people’s lives. (p. 3)

In addition, taking an interdisciplinary perspective, they use London’s 2017Grenfell Tower fire tragedy to illustrate how “the marks of inequality [to which theresidents were exposed] were starkly evident” (p. 1). They describe the deepcontrast between the living standards of the very wealthy district surroundingGrenfell Tower, where the fire took place, and the fact that the high-rise apartmentsin question were themselves situated in the “top 10 per cent most deprived areas inthe country” (p. 1). Indeed, the building construction and safety features werefound to be substandard since highly flammable cladding was used and watersprinkler systems were absent, and, when combined with only one exit door andsafety advice that did not account for these issues, many lives were lost. Moreover,they discuss how the term “diversity” itself was used ideologically, in the ensuingdiscourse by media and government, to describe and differentiate the people andthe area. While there was evidence in the discourse of diversity of it beingconstrued as a “unifying power” in the way the community responded to thetragedy, at the same time, it revealed how the term seemed to have been reservedfor the “diverse poor” (p. 1) and not the equally diverse communities such as thevery wealthy neighbors of the Grenfell Tower occupants. Blackledge et al. (2018)emphasize that:

The context in which the concept of superdiversity has thus far had most salience inacademic and policy contexts is in Western European nation states (Hall, 2017). In 2015,76 million international migrants were residing in Europe, the highest number of any globalregion (UNHCR, 2016). In that year, more than 2 million asylum applications were lodged in38 European countries. (UNHCR, 2016, p. 4)

As with Western Europe, there has been a rise in the number of migrants inAustralia. In 2017–2018, Australia accepted 162,417 migrants, and the AustralianHumanitarian Program provided 16,250 permanent resettlement places for refu-gees with Australia being one of the world’s top permanent resettlement countries;in fact as few as 30 countries offer planned annual programs (Australian Govern-ment, 2018, p. 16). Similarly, in the UK there is a constant flow of applications,including settlement and resettlement, and in 2016, the number of applications forasylum was approximately 39,000 and counted toward a total of 600,000

36 T. Lamb et al.

immigrants who sought entry to study or work (Full Fact, 2017). These immigrantsin total bring many different languages and cultures. For instance, although peoplemigrate from many countries, the Australian Department of Home Affairs (2017)government report states that the top 10 countries providing the most permanentmigrants to Australia in order of rank for 2014–2015 were India, People’s Republicof China, the UK, the Philippines, Pakistan, Ireland, Vietnam, South Africa, Nepal,Malaysia, with Indonesia being a regional source and with the top three countriesfor humanitarian entrants being Syria, Iraq, and Myanmar. In the UK Rienzo andVargas-Silva (2018) specify: “there were 5.3 million foreign born people in 2004which increased to 9.4 million in 2017. During the same period the number offoreign citizens increased from nearly 3 million to about 6.2 million” (para. 3).They note that the top ten countries by nationality were Poland, Romania, Ireland,India, Italy, Portugal, Lithuania, Pakistan, Spain, and France. However, likeAustralia, there are significant other languages and cultures represented, and theyreport an increase in those from the European Union: e.g., in 2017, 39% of theforeign-born population were EU born. The city of Birmingham in the UKMidlands is identified as superdiverse as reported by UK News (2018), citing theCity Council’s (2018) Community Cohesion Strategy Green Paper. This papernotes that nearly 50,000 people in the city cannot speak English and that residentsare from nearly 200 countries. Similarly, in Australia, 20.8% of the populationspeaks a language other than English at home, with Sydney at 35.8% being themost multilingual city. Against this backdrop of social change, the next sectionswill discuss some of the key challenges of linguistic diversity and the opportunitiesfor intervention through policy and education reform.

In acknowledging such increasingly superdiverse contexts, it is crucial tomonitor from the policy perspective the linguistic fabric of world cities andexplore how speakers negotiate their linguistic space. This will include not onlythe ever-shifting relationships between the various overlapping language groupsand the late modern manifestations of “reflexive language and artful performance”(Rampton, 2006, p. 22) as referred to by Lamb (2015) above but also, from a morecritical and structural perspective, attempts to “understand how creative activity isboth enabled and constrained by the conditions in which it takes place” (Calhoun,Sennett, & Shapira, 2013). In other words, it is essential not only to benefit fromthe rich, ethnographic insights afforded by the increasingly hybrid “communica-tive practices and social formations that result from the increasing mobility ofpeople, languages, and texts” but also “to address the asymmetrical power rela-tions and penetrations engendered by such flows” (Jacquemet, 2005, p. 261).These migration flows provoke a number of changes throughout society in orderto accommodate the new circumstances. A key and ongoing issue is socialexclusion and inclusion, in which languages and communication play a key part.While minority groups include Indigenous groups as well as communities with amigration background that date back several generations, the focus here is onurban diversity through migration including forced and economic migrationtrends, although the issues and practices discussed remain relevant to the widermulticultural communities (Moore, 2016).

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 37

Challenge 1: From Exclusion to Inclusion

Explorations of the ways in which societies can and do accommodate this increasingsuperdiversity, and how these ways have been and continue to be reflected in languageand education policies, require a critical approach to the knowledge building processesinvolved. Attention needs to be paid particularly to the concepts of integration andsocial justice as argued by Bindé (2005) and Piller (2016). One challenge is to enhancesocial connectedness to combat exclusion. Taket et al. (2009) describe social exclusionas an “inability to participate effectively in economic, social, political and culturallife,” a “sense of social isolation,” and a process which “affects both the quality of lifeof individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole” (Levitas et al., 2007,p. 9, cited in Taket et al., 2009, p. 8). These definitions raise important questions whenconsidering the social models that arise in the context of superdiversity: To what extentis inequality attributable to linguistic factors? And how can we move from linguisticdiversity as a problem toward linguistic diversity as a resource? Like other linguisticminority communities, new immigrants may experience feelings of exclusion andisolation having to conform to monolinguistic living and learning spaces that work forthe established privileged, majority language speaking (English in Anglophone coun-tries), and socially and politically empowered majority. This is exacerbated when thereis no space for their home languages.

Integration needs to be seen as a two-way process as the “local” environment canaccommodate or hinder successful settlement. Horner and Weber’s analysis of EUsources and a range of texts (official policy documents, print media, and academicpublications) from a number of European countries have revealed “the extent towhich integration has become one of the cultural keywords (Williams [1976]1988)of our age of late modernity” (Horner & Weber, 2011, p. 44). Their study, however,highlights the various interpretations of this concept and argues that it can often bediscriminatory, “constructed around an asymmetrical world-view in which only the‘migrants’ or ‘foreigners’ are perceived as a problem – though, interestingly, foreignresidents with high amounts of capital are not usually included in this category andare not seen as in need of integration” (p. 140). Indeed, it has been argued elsewhere,particularly in radical literature exploring education and diversity in the UK, that“integration” can mean nothing more than “assimilation” (Lamb, 1999). Accordingto Mullard’s critique of assimilation with a focus on ethnicity:

At the base of this model [. . .] rests the belief that the nation is a unitary whole, politicallyand culturally indivisible. Immigrant groups, black or white, should thus be absorbed intothe indigenous homogeneous culture so that they can take an informed and equal part in thecreation and maintenance of our society. (Mullard, 1982, p. 121)

In this model, the function of education is to ease the process of assimilation byteaching minority groups to be like the majority population, thereby enabling themto take an “equal part” in society. There is no place in the curriculum for theimmigrants’ cultures, histories, or languages, as they are seen as problematic for

38 T. Lamb et al.

the development of a harmonious society. Mullard (1982, p. 121) continues hiscritique:

While a certain respect should be encouraged for other cultures and social traditions, thisshould be only a secondary concern. In no way should it be encouraged to the point where itcould possibly undermine the social and ideological bases of the dominant white culture, orthreaten the stability of what was seen as the “host” society.

In parallel with the Australian experience, in the mid-1960s in the UK, the growingfear of ethnic unrest led to the emergence of the concept of integration in officialdiscourse. However, from a historical perspective, this integrationist approach has beencriticized for still involving a somewhat one-sided process, involving far more changeon the part of the minority groups than on the part of the majority, whose role wassimply to learn “tolerance” (Lamb, 1999). “Tolerance” indeed had a much moresymbolic significance for the power-yielding majority than for the minorities, whoneeded to do far more than “tolerate” the majority’s values. Of course, this approachwas more subtle than assimilationist approaches, as it did accept the fact that there aredifferences and, in, for example, educational terms, even involved some resourcing.However, the license to keep aspects of cultural diversity still only extended as far as itdid not challenge majority values. Change was tokenistic, “an acceptance of that whichis quaint in a minority culture but a worried rejection of those cultural aspects that seemnot just alien but threateningly so” (Street-Porter, 1978, pp. 80–81). The aim wasstability, not change, for the majority, and thus integrationist approaches, though nolonger involving total subjugation of all minority cultural values, did subjugateselected ones and were based on the same philosophy as assimilation, namely, thatthe minority would slowly assimilate and lose most of their customs, history, andculture but this time more gently and therefore more harmoniously. In the Australiancontext, again, similarly to the UK, the policy of assimilation was replaced by“integration” in the 1960s, and like the UK policy, it was assimilation in disguise, asthe main objective was to help immigrants become Australian and learn English as fastas possible (Bullivant, 1986; Lo Bianco, 2008).

In schools this period saw the beginnings of multicultural education. At this earlystage, however, changes to the curriculum were minimal. Cultural diversity wasrepresented in schools by the appearance of steel bands, Indian dancing in assem-blies, displays of “national costume,” “foreign” food, and the like, whereas centralaspects of cultural identity, which Smolicz (1991) has referred to as “core values”and which included the languages of the minority groups, were excluded fromschools, with schools instead focusing on the teaching of the language of instructionas a form of compensatory education. In many ways, this has persisted or at leastreturned, as will be explored later, and thus there is still a need for a new social modelvia a paradigm shift, where the current plight of superdiverse communities can beaddressed in terms of how social justice can be achieved. The problem is clearlyvisible on the world stage, and the need to consider changes in how education isprovided remains at the core of the problem.

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 39

Challenge 2: Enhancing Successful Integration ThroughLanguages Education

The concept of language having “an inherent double relationship” in acculturationprocesses (Silverstein, 1998, p. 402) is highly relevant to the social ecology oflanguage development in linguistically superdiverse contexts, as language develop-ment is partly determined by, but also partly determines, the social processessurrounding the community. It serves as a reminder that, as Blommaert, Collins,and Slembrouck (2005) have emphasized, language use is not purely a choice madeby the individual but is shaped by broader forces: “multilingualism is not whatindividuals have and don’t have, but what the environment, as structured determi-nations and interactional emergence, enables and disables” (p. 197). These authorshave raised the pertinent question “How does space organize regimes of language?”and contend that “communication problems in such situations are the result of howindividuals and their communicative ‘baggage’ are inserted into regimes of language[that are] valid in that particular space” (Blommaert et al., 2005, p. 198). Further tothis they highlight that:

people with highly developed multilingual skills can feel, and be, communicativelyincapacitated when they are ‘out of place’. One can find oneself struggling with themost basic and mundane tasks in a foreign country because ‘they don’t speak yourlanguage’, ‘they don’t speak any language’, or, from a different perspective, becauseyou lack the specific multilingual resources and skills required in that place. A change inspatial environment clearly affects our capacity to deploy linguistic resources and skillsand imposes requirements on us which we may fail to meet – a quite common globaliza-tion experience which we accept as a sociolinguistic problem. (Blommaert et al., 2005, p.198)

An additional educational challenge in refugee contexts is that displacedpopulations have been shown to have a high proportion of children and typicallythose children have had their education interrupted by war and have suffered fromvarious barriers to education (Hatoss & Huijser, 2010; Hatoss, 2013). According tothe UNHCR 2016 Report on Global Trends, children below 18 years of ageconstituted about half of the refugee population in 2016, and more than 3.5 millionrefugee children of school age did not attend school (UNHCR, 2017, p. 8). Educat-ing children from these backgrounds poses additional challenges as they often lacktheir first language literacy skills which makes developing literacy skills in any oftheir languages rather difficult. Indeed, many studies have shown how first languageliteracy can enhance second language literacy due to the transfer of academiclanguage skills (Hamers, 2000).

Furthermore, failure to embrace a multilingual approach can bring about negativeconsequences not only for the “minority” community itself, whether of long-standingresidency or refugee background, but also the wider community (Lamb, 2015, p. 8).For the population as a whole, it would be neglectful not to benefit from thecountry’s multilingualism, which is reflected in the National Statement for Lan-guages Education in Australian Schools (2005):

40 T. Lamb et al.

migration by people from across the globe has brought with it English and more than 150additional languages. This is Australia’s linguistic and cultural landscape. It is a valuablebase from which to develop the linguistic capabilities necessary for Australia to be success-ful in the international community of the twenty-first century. (Ministerial Council ofEducation, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2005, p. 3)

More specifically for “minority” communities, however, the negative conse-quences of neglecting multilingualism arise principally in the form of disenfran-chisement from the “majority” community. On the one hand, if “immigrants” havepoor English language skills in an Anglophone country such as Australia, this canlead to long-term unemployment, issues of poor self-esteem, isolation, welfaredependency, and a feeling of exclusion from productive Australian society accordingto the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural and IndigenousAffairs (2003). On the other hand, the loss of the home language in such commu-nities can lead to the loss of ethnic identity and the breaking up of social networksystems within the community. It can also deepen the generational gap betweenelders and youth (Hatoss, 2013). A major study conducted in the South Sudanesediaspora of Australia found that African tribal languages played a significant role aslanguages of communication in most language domains. These languagesrepresented a significant social capital in the community (Hatoss, 2012a). Youngpeople considered it important to develop their home languages for the futureprospect of returning to South Sudan but also for assisting fellow South Sudanesewho were not proficient in English. While English was a “passport” to educationaland job opportunities, home languages provided important access to the socialnetworks of South Sudanese communities. South Sudanese who arrived in Australiaas vulnerable refugees were able to utilize their agency to organize languagemaintenance classes for the benefit of maintaining their language across generations(Hatoss, 2013, 2019a). The important agentive role language plays in migrationcontexts has also been emphasized by numerous other studies. Silverstein (1998), forexample, states:

language is at once an aspect of people’s focused concern as agentive subjects, as well asperhaps the very most central semiotic medium or modality through which those culturalprocesses are, as it were, articulable and articulated. Language seems potentially to bear aninherently double relationship to the larger cultural processes of which it is both emblematicand enabling. (p. 402)

The use of minority languages can be symbolic and emblematic of ethnic andcultural identities, but they can also be instrumental and enabling as they are keys toaccessing people and services. Once we recognize these important functions oflanguage, we can see why top-down policies fall short of social justice if they puttheir focus on the English (or other official language) monolingual ideology andignore lesser used languages which fall outside their radar for economic or politicalgain. While there have been policy efforts to recognize language as an essential toolfor social connectedness and social justice, as the examples in this chapter willdemonstrate, top-down policies have put too much focus on English (although this

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 41

would be expected in Australia and the UK) and some other economically beneficiallanguages, while smaller languages have been largely neglected. We argue that thisattitude is insufficient, multilingualism needs to be seen as a benefit for all, andcommunities need to be given more opportunities to practice their agency andmanage their language resources to the best effect. Thus, it is important to considerthe implications of policy regarding these challenges.

Policy Responses 1: Multicultural and Multilingual EducationPolicy

The road from integration approaches to languages and education for social justice isrepresented by a recognition that the central values of minority groups are not goingto go away and that cultural pluralism is the new reality. As such, it has beenconsidered important that the majority population should be educated for suchcultural diversity in a more thorough way, and from the 1970s to the 1990s, manycountries, including Australia and the UK, adopted multicultural policies, whichrecognized the rights and identities of minority groups (Castles, 2014, p. 198). Forexample, in the 1970s UK schools experienced increasing changes to the curriculumas a whole. The content of the various subjects on the curriculum was reviewed toinclude a multicultural dimension, which would have the added effect of improvingthe “low self-esteem” from which minority children were assumed to be suffering,by including recognition of the contribution of cultures from across the globe toscientific development.

In the Australian context, from 1972 onward, which marked the shift from aEuropean migrant focus and White Australia policy to a nondiscriminatory immi-gration policy, the Australian Citizenship Act (coupled with the influx of refugeesfrom the Vietnam war) opened immigration particularly to the Asia-Pacific (Inglis,2004) and, as Czaika and de Haas (2014, p. 32) note, “increasingly non-European.”Multiculturalism was introduced as an overt national policy, and policies have sincerecognized the needs of immigrants, particularly the “new,” arriving from diverselinguistic backgrounds. Australia’s multicultural policy (Australian MulticulturalAdvisory Council, 2013, p. 6) “celebrates and values the benefits of cultural diver-sity for all Australians”; “is committed to a just, inclusive and socially cohesivesociety”; “welcomes the economic benefits of multiculturalism”; and “promote(s)understanding and acceptance while responding to expressions of intolerance anddiscrimination with the force of the law.” This policy explicitly supports equity andequal access to services responding to the needs of Australia’s culturally andlinguistically diverse communities. It also aligns with the Government’s SocialInclusion Agenda where Australians of all backgrounds feel valued and can partic-ipate in our society (p. 6).

Although the UK, Australia, and Europe have well-established claims to suc-cessful multiculturalism (Council of Europe, 2017; Office of Multicultural Affairs,1995), it is also clear that problems related to social justice are present (Castles,1992) and have become even more challenging in the context of new social

42 T. Lamb et al.

complexities associated with superdiversity. In the European context, this isilluminated in the Language Rich Europe report (British Council, 2013) whereissues raised both nationally and regionally range from “the need for a campaign toconvince policy makers of the importance of languages” through “low take up oflanguage learning in Anglophone countries” to varied “developments such asContent and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)” (p. 3). Moreover, ten recom-mendations are reported, related to policy, education, media and press, publicservices, and public spaces. Besides a disconnect being identified between home/community learning and that of school, the issue of languages education wascentral to concerns, including both students’ learning of languages otherthan English and the need for teachers of a wide range of languages to haveaccess to professional development. The importance of language is reinforced inRecommendation 7 (p. 5):

. . . the offer of languages other than the national language(s) should be adapted so that allstudents, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to learn the languages of theircommunity, from pre-primary to university education. Where in-school support is notpossible for less commonly spoken languages, education authorities should provide financialsupport for language learning outside of school and find ways to recognise the value of allthese languages in the daily life of the school. Language skills should be developed for moreinclusive societies and teaching should reflect the diversity of the student population.

In the Australian context, the National Curriculum has made provisions forlanguages, but languages education cannot keep up with the demands of over 300languages spoken in Australian homes. While there has been a great deal of attentionon economically important so-called trade languages, other languages simply do notmake it to the curriculum, at least not in mainstream education. While linguisticallyspeaking all languages are equal, when it comes to education, some languages aremore equal than others. This also raises the highly controversial issue aroundIndigenous languages and their space (or lack of) in the Australian curriculum.Educational curricula have been designed to fit the English speaker, and little supportis provided for those who do not fit this mold.

In the UK context, in the 1980s, there were changes to languages education forminority children, with some recognition that a child’s first language was aresource rather than a liability and therefore should be used within schools eitheras a transitional medium of instruction or as a curricular subject. Building ondevelopments in multicultural education, this approach was a major developmentin education policy, as for the first time it was also recognized that multiculturaleducation was not simply to be targeted at minorities, whose deficit needed to beaddressed, but that all children (including those in all white areas) needed to beprepared for life in diverse societies by experiencing changes in the curriculum.Reporting on changes in his languages department in London during the 1980s,Lamb (2011) has described how language awareness lessons were developed forall children to raise their awareness of the linguistic diversity in the school (whereover 40 languages were spoken), drawing on the learners’ language expertise as alearning resource:

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 43

Monolingual English speakers found themselves with a linguistic deficit compared with thebilingual pupils, and consequently sought to find family connections with speakers of otherlanguages – for example, “My uncle has a girlfriend who speaks Greek” – in order to be ableto “compete”. When offered the chance to choose their National Curriculum language on thebasis of a series of (French, German, Greek, Turkish, and Urdu) language tasters, asignificant number chose the language of their friends, since it connected more closelywith their own lives than the European languages usually offered. Bilingual and plurilingualpupils moved from a position of denial with regards to their bilingualism or plurilingualism,to one in which they were ready to support their fellow pupils’ learning of these languages.Their cries of “that’s my language” contrasted remarkably with previous experiences inwhich they had not raised their hands to say that they were bilingual in response to teachers’questions. (Lamb, 2011, pp. 86–87)

Similarly, in the Australian context, policies started to recognize the benefit oflanguages for all. In 1987 Australia’s first national policy of languages educationidentified “equality, including social justice and overcoming disadvantage” as one ofthe key motivations for learning languages in Australia. In the context of immigrantgroups, in addition to developing competence in English, the policy emphasized theneed of immigrant populations to have access to services in languages other thanEnglish. The policy, however, was not just focused on new arrivals but also called forlanguages education more broadly for the benefit of all Australians.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that Australian languages education policy hasencompassed languages and literacy needs in general, as well as having a strongfocus on English as a second language and provisions for English language learningfor all refugee immigrants, the impetus for teaching languages other than English inAustralia, including Indigenous languages (Freeman & Stayley, 2018), appearslacking in terms of policy and curriculum implementation and teacher training,despite the strong advocacy on the part of those in the field (Liddicoat, 2014;Scarino, 2014). Reasons include the increased freedom for schools to decide whetherto offer languages, contrary to the recommendations of federal government policy(Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2018) and despite theresearch arguments for, for example, starting languages in preschool (Moloney,2018). Significantly, there remains a lack of perceived need to learn other languagesgiven the universality of English and the monolinguistic society in general (Piller,2016; Yildiz, 2012), as well as an absence of a focused, cohesive approach andadequate resourcing.

This has been evident in the Australian context over the last 30 years, though it isimportant to acknowledge that some important policy steps have attempted toaddress the issues faced by minority language speakers. These policies have largelyfocused on the provision of services for community languages or the teaching ofEnglish for better adjustment and integration into mainstream society. For instance,the Australian Language and Literacy Policy recognized community languages andargued for the benefits of keeping them based on four broad strategies: (1) theconservation of Australia’s linguistic resources; (2) the development and expansionof these resources; (3) the integration of Australian language teaching and languageuse with national economic, social, and cultural policies; and (4) the provision of

44 T. Lamb et al.

information and services in languages understood by clients. Language developmentof the individual (referring generically to the speaker’s first language) was seen asinterrelated with intellectual, emotional, and social development. In addition to itsprimary communicative functions, language also was seen as serving a wide range ofcultural, artistic, intellectual, personal, group identification, religious, economic, andsocial-political functions.

In addition, the Commonwealth English as a Second Language (ESL) Programfor schools (Department of Education Employment and Training, 1991) was intro-duced in its current form in 1982. The “General Support” element replaced a former“Child Migrant Education Program,” which had been established in 1970 under theImmigration (Education) Act. The “New Arrivals” element, introduced in 1982,represented a broadening of the former “Commonwealth Contingency Program forRefugee Children.” The ESL program’s overall objective was to improve theeducational opportunity and outcomes, and participation in Australian society, ofchildren from “non-English-speaking backgrounds” (NESB). To this end it aimed todevelop students’ English language competence and facilitate students’ participationin mainstream school education. The “General Support” element assisted govern-ment and nongovernment education authorities to provide English language assis-tance to students permanently resident in Australia (including NESB children born inAustralia and students whose first language is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanderlanguage or Creole) in the course of their general schooling. The “New Arrivals”element assisted government and nongovernment education authorities to provideintensive ESL programs specifically organized for students newly arrived in Aus-tralia who had little or no English language skills and who were permanent residentsof Australia.

As part of immigration policy, English language tuition has continued to beprovided for new ESL arrivals through the Australian Migrant Education Program(AMEP). The first Commonwealth Government-assisted program began atBonegilla in 1948. Then in 1951 the States’ co-operation in AMEP programs wasformalized by an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State governments.Today, immigrants are entitled to receive a minimum of 510 h of free Englishlessons, which includes various options for learning, including full-time, part-time,or home tutoring. However, refugee background learners are eligible for extra hours.Owing to pressure by advocacy groups and following the recommendations of theRefugee Council of Australia, the AMEP program has been reviewed and issues ofaccessibility such as for migrants living in regional and rural areas have been raised.For example, refugees were initially required to use up their English tuition hours inthe first 12 months of their settlement, but this period was extended as many of themsuffered from ongoing trauma, were grappling with financial pressures, and wereinvolved in prioritized low-paid casual labor at the expense of learning the Englishlanguage.

Despite changes over the past 30 years, however, the constructs of multiculturaland multilingual education described in this section could still largely be consideredas based on the liberal notion of equal opportunities, where the focus is intended to

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 45

ease the transition to a multicultural society (though the additional focus on the corevalue of language diversity took this a step further). Recognizing that this may not besufficient to address the structural racism and social injustice that was seen by someto underpin every aspect of education and society in general, more radical educa-tionalists and politicians in the UK developed forms of anti-racist education in the1980s, particularly in large cities such as London (ILEA, 1983), as will be exploredlater. In the Australian context, as we have seen, the focus in the past has mostly beenon assisting immigrants to learn English (seeing linguistic diversity as a problem),and only when the Productive Diversity for Multicultural Australia (Department ofImmigration & Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, 1999) was released did thevalues of languages gain recognition as an important asset to the whole society, andthus languages education gained some momentum.

Policy Responses 2: Community Languages and Ethnic Schools –The Case of Australia

In the Australian context, another policy initiative to address linguistic diversity wasthe introduction of community language schools or ethnic schools that teach immi-grant languages on Saturdays. These schools depend on government funding andgrants. Community Languages Australia (CLA) is an umbrella body of the ethnicschools/community languages schools of Australia, which oversees over 1000community language schools that provide language maintenance in 69 languagesto in excess of 100,000 school-age children (Community Languages Australia,2017). While these ethnic schools fulfil an important role, however, they cannotfully cater for the diversity present in Australian society. Communities need to have acritical mass in order to successfully run and maintain their programs; over 200languages spoken in Australian communities do not have ethnic schools as they donot have this critical mass in 1 locality. Another avenue of learning and maintainingthe home languages is through the mainstream education program, which offerslanguages education during school hours. Languages other than English is one of theeight key learning areas in the National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-FirstCentury, which continues to guide curriculum policy and programs operating inAustralian schools. Languages education in schools is primarily the responsibility ofstate and territory education authorities although it is included in the nationalcurriculum.

According to the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training andYouth Affairs (2003) Review of Languages Education in Australian Schools,approximately 50% of students were learning a language in mainstream schools.There were 146 languages being taught in mainstream and nonmainstream schoolsettings. Of these, 103 languages (including 68 Australian Indigenous languages)were taught in government, Catholic, and independent schools in addition to 69 ofthem taught in after-hours ethnic/community languages schooling. Nevertheless, bythe time students reach year 12 (age 16 to 17 years), there are very few who havecontinued learning a language other than English. Another issue is the equitability of

46 T. Lamb et al.

the provision of languages. The top six languages (Japanese, Italian, Indonesian,French, German, and Chinese) have accounted for 90% of all language learners. Asreferred to above, there are many additional small languages that do not haveinstitutional support, and smaller communities are left without support to maintaintheir heritage language, leaving intergenerational language transmission largelyconfined to the home domain (Renzaho, Dhingra, & Georgeou, 2017). The com-plexity of the linguistic landscape of Australia’s community languages demands asolution that brings languages into the core of the curriculum, as opposed to beingtreated as an add-on. As noted earlier, it is difficult to ensure that the expectedoutcomes of top-down policy and planning initiatives can be equitable with over 300immigrant languages needing support, not to mention the numbers of Indigenouslanguages. The main issue with this policy initiative, however, is that it treatslanguages as on the periphery (Hatoss, 2018), and, as we have argued, contrary towhat is espoused in national top-down language education initiatives, languagelearning often remains optional and the uptake of languages varies across States.

Policy Responses 3: Anti-racist Education

Australia’s multicultural policy explicitly opposes racism and any form of discrim-ination, stating that “racism and discrimination affects people’s health andwellbeing” (Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2011). The policy alsorecognizes the importance of and the “rights” of people to maintain their ethnicidentity, culture, and languages. This is made explicit in the statement: “[t]hese rightsand liberties include Australians of all backgrounds being entitled to celebrate,practice and maintain their cultural heritage, traditions and language within thelaw and free from discrimination.” However, contrary to this policy rhetoric, issueshave continued to arise to do with racism, freedom of speech, inclusion, settlementpolicy, refugee status, and border protection, reflecting the global tensions and trendsof unrest of those populations who are driven to seek a better life (Wright &Clibborn, 2017). Young people with a refugee background have been shown toexperience everyday racism and “othering” in Australian contexts (Hatoss, 2012b).

In the UK context, the introduction of anti-racist education in the 1980srepresented a major paradigm shift in response to diversity and can be seen as astep closer to social justice in education. Many of its protagonists were concernedthat, although multicultural approaches were a step forward and indeed needed to bemaintained, they nevertheless ignored the historical, sociological, and politicalbackgrounds to inequality and social injustice. As such, anti-racist educationaddressed issues of power (past and present) and power resistance. It recognizedthat racism ran throughout social institutions, causing economic inequality; discrim-ination in access to housing, education, and employment; and poor relations withauthorities such as the police. It was seen to be insufficient (though essential) to try tochange attitudes, since inequality not only stemmed from individual prejudices butwas also built into social structures, though it was considered important to developindividuals’ awareness and criticality of institutional racism in order to prepare them

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 47

to combat it. Education, however, also needed to be subjected to structural changes,including the adoption of whole-school policies on anti-racism, ensuring consulta-tion with and participation of local communities in education; the development ofanti-racist curricula and pedagogies (to include the development of critical thinkingand critique of the colonialist background of society), as well as anti-racist educationas part of teacher education; and the development of strategies to diversify theteaching body at all levels of seniority.

From the late 1980s onward, however, anti-racist education in the UK wasattacked from all political directions. Obviously, right-wing critics were concernedwith its threat to British values and traditions, and this influenced the development ofthe National Curriculum in 1987. Indeed, it was a factor in the abolition of the left-wing Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority (1983) atthe end of the 1980s by the Thatcherite government. Left-wing critics on the otherhand have accused it of oversimplifying the issues, arguing that a focus on racismignores issues of class, the diversity of ethnic groups, and multiple, shifting con-structions of identity. This is all the more pertinent in the context of the diversediversities of superdiversity, which requires a more complex analysis of andresponse to social and educational issues. In a recent article, Crul (2016) has arguedthat the relatively descriptive concept of superdiversity itself may still be moreappropriate than previous grand theories (he focuses particularly on differentforms of assimilation rather than on anti-racism) to gain an understanding of currentsocial models. Nevertheless, he calls for more nuanced approaches to analyzing theways in which the diversification of ethnic groups is shifting to a diversificationwithin ethnic groups, as well as for the need to move toward a multidimensionalperspective. This anti-positivist approach to understanding complexity echoes anearlier position advocated by Chimni (1998) specifically in relation to the ways inwhich the position of refugees and asylum seekers has been interpreted by Western“host” countries. Offering a “view from the South,” he argues that legal responses torefugees and asylum seekers from developing countries have been influenced by atendency to locate causes to simplistic political interpretations of the internal situa-tions of the countries from which they were fleeing. In response to this, he draws onMcGrew (1997, p. 232) and “squarely rejects the internalist explanation, for this isoverly deferential to the boundaries of nation-states, refusing to come to terms withthe idea that external social forces often crucially shape internal policies of states”(Chimni, 1998, p. 362). Instead he advocates a “‘new new approach’ [that] willembrace a conception of legal scholarship which has the potential of articulating acomprehensive and humane response to the contemporary refugee problem throughdialogue” (p. 369).

Crul’s response to the need for a more comprehensive approach to understandingthe needs of superdiverse communities is to argue similarly for greater complexityand comprehensiveness in analysis. However, he does this by borrowing fromintersectionality, according to which “divisions like gender, class, generation, agecohorts and ethnicity are considered to be interconnected (Crenshaw, 1989), thuspromoting a holistic perspective in which different modes of differentiation are seen

48 T. Lamb et al.

as related without privileging any particular category of difference (Glick Schiller,Çaglar, & Guldbrandsen, 2006)” (Crul, 2016, p. 56).

Be that as it may, however, it is impossible to ignore the major contribution madeby the anti-racist movement to issues of social justice, recognizing as it did that theproblem of social inequality, and thus underachievement and disaffection in schools,is not located in individuals or individual groups but in the education system and inbroad social structures that can enable, or disable, particular social, economic, andlinguistic practices.

Policy Responses 4: Citizenship and the Monolingual Mind-Set

Rather than providing the much-needed support for immigrants in their endeavors tomaintain their home languages (though there is more of this in Australia than in theUK), government policies have often focused on fixing the issue of inequality byassisting migrants to integrate into the monolingual English-speaking mainstreamsociety, as has been seen above. This is echoed in Castles’ (2014, p. 198) broaderargument that since the mid-1990s, there has been a “backlash against multicultural-ism” that is largely founded on the social disadvantage of many minority communities,once again putting the blame on minorities themselves for insisting on maintainingtheir cultural identity and, as a result, failing to integrate. Castles suggests that this isclosely connected to an increase in globalization and neoliberalism with their focus onindividuals and markets resulting in greater inequality; in other words, the pressurefrom international markets has led to disparities in income while at the same timereducing the power of the state to address inequalities through taxation and socialpolicy. From the turn of the millennium, civic unrest and the growth of Islamophobiahave further led to an increased preoccupation with “civic integration, social cohesionand ‘national values’” in Europe. Even where multicultural policies still exist, Castlessuggests, such as in Australia, Canada, and Europe, there is a parallel focus oncitizenship and integration. Australia, like other countries, has recently introducedcitizenship tests, which disadvantages long-standing residents for whom Englishcontinues to be a barrier. In the Australian context, tightening up citizenship lawswas argued in relation to discourses of national security, but this is highly problematicas it can lead to a potential increase in xenophobia, which often goes hand in hand withlinguicism. Across Europe, May (2014, p. 373) demonstrates how “multiculturalism aspublic policy is in apparent full retreat, as European states increasingly assert thatminority groups integrate or accept dominant social, cultural linguistic and religiousmores as the price of ongoing citizenship (Modood, 2007).”

Such shifts are reflected in the persistence of a monolingual mind-set in manycountries. Indeed, May (2014) also claims that such “public monolingualism” in anofficial or national language persists consistently across the world and that, evenwhere there is more than one official language, there is nothing more than a “highlydelimited form of public multilingualism,” meaning that “one language variety (atmost two or three) still dominates in terms of its widespread use in the public

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 49

domain” (p. 372). He goes on to claim: “Those who (still) lack facility in a nationallanguage, most often recent migrants, are regularly chastised, and sometimespunished, by states for their ‘wilful’ failure to ‘integrate’” (May, 2014, p. 373).

Australia has long been criticized for its monolingual mind-set which does notrecognize the value of languages (Clyne, 2008; Hajek & Slaughter, 2014; Hatoss,2019a, b; Ndhlovu, 2015; Scarino, 2014), and even today after 50 years of multi-cultural policy development, Australia has seen reports of negative attitudes towardthe use of languages other than English in public domains (Hatoss, 2019b) reflectiveof a monolingual mind-set. In Australia, most Indigenous languages are endangeredand have no space in mainstream education. Like in the USA, the long-standingbilingual education program was dismantled; from 2008 policy mandates that thefirst 4 years of school have to be exclusively in English.

This mind-set, which affects the attitudes of individuals and groups as well asinstitutions and structures, can be seen in other countries, especially those which arepredominantly Anglophone such as the UK, where the fear of multilingualism wasreported in 2000 in a major review of the state of languages across the nation (TheNuffield Foundation, 2000). This review found that the UK “was neglecting thenation’s wealth” by neglecting its linguistic diversity, highlighting that “the multilin-gual talents of UK citizens are under-recognised, under-used and all too often viewedwith suspicion” (p. 36). Indeed, echoing Horner and Weber (2011), this suspicion canbe understood as a symptom of a “monolingual ideology,” which nurtures a pro-blematization of multilingualism, as identified by Li Wei (2011):

. . . public perception of minority ethnic children, especially those who speak languagesother than English at home, is that of problems. Their multilinguality often seems to be acontributing factor; that is, the children’s apparent underachievement or the socioeconomicdisadvantage they are experiencing has been attributed to the fact that they do not speakEnglish only or all the time. (p. 371).

However, also in the European context, Baetens Beardsmore (2003) makes theconnection between fear and problematization of bi- and plurilingualism anddescribes how this fear even exists among parents, a situation also reported bySouto-Manning (2006) in her research with bi- and plurilingual families in theUSA, who also claims that professionals too share such assumptions. QuotingHamers (2000, p. 86), she writes that “the stereotype of negative consequencesstill survives” and that “[p]arents and professionals in the area of education continueregarding bilingualism as a deficit in their philosophical beliefs (Hamers, 2000) andsponsor this idea by incorporating it in their narratives and advice” (Souto-Manning,2006, p. 444). As can be seen here, the pervasiveness of the monolingual mind-setcan even affect the multilingual communities themselves, as reported in the follow-ing study (Hatoss, 2019b) in Australia:

(There is a) perception that public spaces are not appropriate for multilinguistic (sic)behavior, and that some languages should be used in the privacy of people’s homes.I remember in high school when a group of students would sit together and speak anotherlanguage other than English, some students would find that uncomfortable or even offensive.

50 T. Lamb et al.

This comment suggests then that, even where there have been to some extentprogressive policies, there is still, at least for some, a persistent monolingual mind-set;in Anglophone countries at least, English is still seen as the only legitimate code to beused in public spaces, and home languages should remain confined to people’s homes(Hatoss, 2019b; Lamb & Vodicka, 2018). Castles’ (2014) analysis goes some way toproviding a potential reason for this, arguing that “it is important to note thatmulticultural discourses have often declined more than actual multicultural policies:measures to recognize the social and cultural needs of immigrants and minorities haveoften changed little, even as public discourse has shifted” (Castles, 2014, p. 198).

As we have suggested, a monolingual mind-set can lead to the exclusion of homelanguages not only from educational contexts but also from other public spaces. Lamband Vodicka (2018, p. 9) have highlighted that this means that “particular linguisticgroups may be excluded from learning or even using their languages beyond thespaces of the home or linguistic community.” Furthermore, it also means that there arefew opportunities to challenge the negative dispositions toward multilingualism,which are in this way “perpetuated across the population, as the value of otherlanguages and, hence, the contribution of the diverse linguistic communities, to thecommon good remains unarticulated and invisible” (Lamb & Vodicka, 2018, p. 9).

Policy Responses 5: New Spaces of Multilingualism in Educationand Beyond

For Lamb and Vodicka (2018), the limitations of macro-level policy to challenge themonolingual mind-set in the UK can be explained in two ways. Firstly, they describehow even 10 years of UK government policy to develop a progressive NationalLanguages Strategy and provide significant funding and structures to enable multi-lingualism to be promoted and supported (Department for Education and Skills,2002) can be completely reversed when a new government is elected (p. 13).Secondly, they draw on Bourdieu (1985) and Gogolin (2002) to explore the mono-lingual mind-set as a “monolingual habitus,” “an internalised set of cultural normsthat shape individual thinking, identities, choices and behaviours, [and which] isconstructed by power relations; [they] understand that it is not determined bystructures but emerges from dynamic webs of dispositions that have been shapedby past and present experiences and practices” (Lamb & Vodicka, 2018, p. 10). Seenin this way, it becomes clear that it is a challenge to shift the monolingual habitus.

Nevertheless, insights from Bourdieu (1985), as well as interdisciplinary explo-rations of the constructs of space, place, and collective and critical autonomy in thecontext of struggle and resistance, enable Lamb and Vodicka to argue that multilin-gual cities can be conducive to such a shift. In order to do so, they suggest strategiesto create “the conditions in which multilingualism can be normalised and interlin-gual encounters nurtured” through “changes in the education and everyday experi-ences of everyone, both formally in educational spaces and informally in publicspaces, which must valorise, make visible and normalise the presence of the lan-guages of our communities and develop a ‘plurilingual habitus’ through the

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 51

production of interlingual shared spaces” (Lamb & Vodicka, 2018, p. 10). This callto action addresses not only formal and informal educational spaces but also formalcivic and informal local neighborhood spaces with their linguistically hybrid prac-tices. Significantly, reconceptualizing the construct of autonomy, it also calls forcollectively autonomous actions by grassroot groups and communities to resist themonolingual habitus. For Lamb and Vodicka (2018):

Such groups and communities may inhabit physical urban spaces or virtual spaces in a globalworld, but collectively they will be living an autonomy that is in the present, shaping “thevision of the world,” developing their symbolic power themselves, and imposing recognitionof the value of multilingualism and plurilingualism in a process of shifting the monolingualhabitus. (Bourdieu, 1994, pp. 137–138) (p. 13)

One area that lends itself to working with rather than on local communities is thestudy of linguistic landscapes and the use of narratives of lived experiences inmultilingual spaces. For example, Busch (2012) used a multimodal, biographicalapproach, to explore learners’ linguistic experience and linguistic resources andargued for a poststructuralist approach to the notion of “repertoire.” Narrativeshave also been used to study refugee experiences in diverse social and educationalcontexts (Baynham & De Fina, 2005; Hatoss, 2012b; Labov, 2010). Such findingsfrom everyday public spaces can provide crucial empirical data to (1) addresslanguage-based discrimination, (2) promote linguistic diversity, and (3) advocatefor plurilingual approaches in education. Such empirical research can inform policyand enhance the well-being of multicultural communities, who can also be involvedin generating the narratives.

Having critiqued the effectiveness of the way languages education policy andplanning have responded to the needs of superdiverse communities, the followingsection outlines strategies for change. These strategies support the argument for thenurturing of new spaces of language use that challenge the monolingual habitus andwhich are able to engage the collective autonomy of communities themselves. Itadvocates a paradigm shift that has the capacity to bring attention to and eliminatesocial injustice in linguistically diverse communities by building community capac-ity through activist languages education.

Strategy 1: A Paradigm Shift

To address the monolingual mind-set and the associated issues in relation to the lackof strategic consideration of languages education and superdiverse communities,O’Neill (2019) argues for a paradigm shift toward establishing an allocentric viewusing the metaphor of turning languages education inside out. This is illustrated inFig. 1, which depicts the implications of this for community capacity building andthe way Bindé (2005) envisions knowledge building communities across the worldas part of global citizenship (Dahlgren, 2015) in keeping with McNiff’s (2013)notion of “cultural cosmopolitanism.”

52 T. Lamb et al.

In arguing for “world’s best practice in collaborative, social capacity building,”this model highlights the need for new learning spaces that include workplaces,knowledge sharing, and pedagogies that facilitate learning languages, literacies,multiliteracies, intercultural knowledge, and skills that are integrated across thecurriculum for all. Following Bindé’s (2005) advocacy for social justice in termsof peoples’ universal access to information, freedom of expression, cultural andlinguistic diversity, and access to education for all, the need for a shift away from thestandard traditional practices associated with the monolingual mind-set and accom-panying policy rhetoric is reinforced in this metaphor and direction for pedagogicalchange relevant to multilingual, superdiverse communities.

Strategy 2: Bottom-Up Language Planning Initiatives

As we have seen, top-down language policies are ineffective in ensuring sustainedmultilingualism and in addressing issues of social justice when it comes tolinguistically diverse communities. While traditionally language planning wasseen as a top-down activity, there is increasing focus on bottom-up micro-leveland community-level language planning in local contexts (Barkhuizen & Knoch,2006; Hornberger, 1996; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008). These planning initiativeshave been shown to be more effective in mobilizing communities and takingaction for the transmission of their home language to the next generation.Communities are enabled to be proactive and develop their language programsfrom bottom-up in their local context. In fact, bottom-up language planning

Fig. 1 Graphical representation of the concept of “turning languages education inside out.” (Withpermission of the author, O’Neill, 2019, in press)

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 53

has been shown to equip communities with agency and control over the future oftheir linguistic heritage and has been shown to motivate community membersand foster their uptake of activist roles in the education of their children(Hatoss, 2019a).

Language policies also need to be backed by strong empirical data on languageattitudes in those major global cities, which are experiencing high levels of inwardmigration from linguistically and culturally diverse populations. Secondly, there is aneed to document grassroot language planning initiatives in order to showcasestudies of what works and what does not work. Such studies can (i) evaluate theimpact of top-down policy on small language communities and (ii) gather evidenceof strategies that work for language planning from bottom-up.

Strategy 3: Education for Global Citizenship

O’Neill (2019) advocates for languages education policy and practice to createmuch-needed educational change and subsequently community/social changewhere global citizenship and the responsibilities that this invokes would be theunderpinning theme. She identifies examples of change in policy, curriculum, andpedagogy that have the potential to “afford[ed] maximum opportunity to use thetarget language in authentic, experiential, focused learning spaces” (in press). Firstly,she describes how one Australian state’s policy and curriculum has introduced theidea of “global schools” (Department of Education, Training and Employment,2014) where schools are connected globally to develop global citizenship throughstudents communicating in their respective L2 s in project- and experiential-based,student-centered language learning experiences, using the Internet and studentexchange. School principal leadership of the initiative is seen as a necessary facil-itator in ensuring its implementation in that the approach has the capacity tostimulate change in the traditional negative attitudes toward languages learningfound in both schooling and community in monolingual societies (Scarino, 2014).This approach also has applicability to the need for languages learning in super-diverse communities where local minority and heritage languages would be a focusand languages learning would involve community collaboration in a similar collab-orative pedagogical model. This would in turn stimulate cross-cultural awarenessand help develop intercultural literacy. Secondly, she identifies how communitymembers’ existing languages skills can be valued by enabling them to acquirecompetencies that are linked to competency-based industry training qualifications.She cites the work of O’Neill and Hatoss (2003) that reports on the development oflanguage competencies for Australian Tourism and Hospitality Training Packages.Such an approach lends itself to Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) processes andprovides a potential hook into training and building immigrants’ (and indeed moreestablished linguistic communities’) capacity through valuing their existing lan-guage skills. Although applicable to other industry areas, the hospitality industry isparticularly relevant since many recent immigrants are employed in the casual work

54 T. Lamb et al.

force in this way; and such an approach would link to a mapping of local workplacesand community spaces for work-integrated learning (Abbott-Chapman, 2011).

Strategy 4: Technology

In terms of providing for the learning of English as the lingua franca (or otherlanguages, e.g., French, Turkish) in superdiverse communities, the use of digitalcommunication technologies is argued to be essential. Just as Bindé (2005) recog-nizes, a digital divide exists across the world between those who have universalaccess to information via the Internet and those who do not, emphasizing how thisdeprives the have-nots of being able to participate in a knowledge-building society. Itcan be argued that some members of superdiverse communities are similarly mar-ginalized in spite of a general ease of access to technology in Western countries.Nevertheless it needs to be recognized that digital communication technologies offersignificant options for authentic interactive-communicative projects in superdiversecommunities not only to stimulate the authentic learning of English but also toprovide additional opportunities for language groups to use their home language/s.Again, in keeping with Tochon’s (2014) project- and problem-based learning, usinga thematic approach has been shown to foster language learning in a way thatfacilitates learner engagement and learner autonomy.

Access to technology enables a bottom-up approach that operates in an expandedrange of potential communicative interactions, which can be highly motivating andenabling for the learner, through their use of multimedia, multimodal texts, andsocial media. Many members of superdiverse communities are likely to have accessto at least a smartphone, and they will become adept in its use as a mini computer fordaily needs, including the opportunity to dialogue, search, and use services such asUber and GPS. This access also provides the opportunity to interact and collaborate,use apps such as WeChat, and communicate on Facebook, which can immediatelytranslate posts and supports free text messaging. It also supports the playing ofcomputer games that can have language learning and educational benefits (Soyoof,2018; Wright & Skidmore, 2010). Importantly, Chen (2013, p. 125) specifies thevalue of social networking in that it can “empower users to navigate across lan-guages, cultures, and identities . . . [and its] use helps learners construct their L2identity and build a relationship with the target culture.” Additionally, such appli-cations have been found to help contextualize cross-disciplinary language use andencourage collaboration and learners’ use of media as an authoring platform (Lin,Warschauer, & Blake, 2016). O’Neill (2019, in press) concludes:

The capacity of technology to improve pedagogy by facilitating a common language andmeaning-making system for learning explicates metacognitive processes and enables dia-logic practices that use new tools to ensure the development of collaborative skills. All in all,research demonstrates that digital communication technologies and social networking siteshave provided a springboard for the transformation of languages learning, as well asfacilitating glocal collaborative dialogic practices that have the ability to support knowl-edge-building communities.

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 55

Strategy 5: Service Learning and Activist Pedagogy

With this in mind, the fifth far-reaching strategy, argued to be able to exert asignificant positive impact on superdiverse communities, is the incorporation ofservice learning, across disciplines, into community initiatives, secondary schooling,and tertiary education (Long, 2016); this ensures mutually beneficial, shared learn-ing, including language and literacy learning opportunities, and the fostering ofintercultural awareness and development of intercultural literacy (Yorio & Ye, 2012).Service learning, as a community engagement pedagogy, is defined “as a pedagogythat promotes educational experiences in which students participate, provide mean-ingful work, and reflect upon organized activities that meet identified communityneeds” (Molderez & Fonseca, 2017, para., 2.3.2). Participants can be matched toworkplace contexts where they can provide assistance, practice skills, utilize theirhome language, and learn new skills depending on the context. Service learning istypically organized through educational institutions working closely with theircommunities, where such work-based learning as an alternative pedagogy may belinked to course objectives. Identification of placements may be organized at theinstitutional level (Phillips Bolduc & Gallo, 2013) or initiated by the learner (Krebs,Katira, Singh, & Rigsbee, 2013). This can build confidence and provide mutualbenefits for participants and hosts, and as a community engagement strategyaddresses social justice issues and helps build social capital (Krebs et al., 2013).For instance, Camicelli and Boluk (2017, p. 132) emphasize that “service-learningcan be the pedagogical approach that because of its incongruence with traditionalpedagogies can disrupt the norm of individualism, teacher control and studentpassivity.” They go on to explain that as a result of service learning: it is possibleto observe a relevant difference regarding […students’] social-cultural perspectives.Students engaged in our projects became more aware of the community aroundthem, and the engagement with external groups together with the reflective approachcreated a space to acquire new skills that may not always be possible to do in class.Moreover, the reflective practice made students more aware of the social injustices intheir communities and the importance to be proactively engaged in tackling suchissues.

Thus, service learning as a pedagogy has applicability to all the community and iswell recognized as being able to promote social justice and be transformative in itseducational outcomes. Camicelli and Boluk (2017, pp. 126–128) also argue itsconfluence with transformative critical pedagogy in relation to how this can trans-form students as social agents, noting that engaging in community service hasbeen recognized as a way to prepare students to adopt an active citizenship role(Howard, 1998). As they challenge the traditional view of learning as “transmissionof information,” their advocacy for service learning pedagogy is seen as providing away of disrupting this traditional teacher-centered approach where students arepassive receivers of information to one of students who are proactively engaged –“a student-centered pedagogical approach.” They illustrate their alternative activistpedagogy in Fig. 2. This pedagogical model presents a different trajectory for

56 T. Lamb et al.

students and lends itself in principle particularly to this chapter’s focus on languageseducation (although developed in the context of physical education).

Kirk et al. (2018) in keeping with Camicelli and Boluk (2017) also advocate anactivist approach to learning in order to address the problem of adolescent girls’disengagement with physical education. Their pedagogical model is in keeping withthe above counternormative approach for social justice, but central to its implemen-tation in this context is the importance of helping girls to “learn to value thephysically active life” (Siedentop, 1996). Within this focus, Kirk et al. (2018,p. 222) describe the activist pedagogical model as “specifically a ‘pedagogy ofaffect’, working primarily in the affective rather than the physical domain (Baileyet al., 2009). The model has four critical elements: student-centredness; pedagogiesof embodiment; listening to respond over time; [and] inquiry-based learning centredin action” (p. 222). McDonough, Forgasz, Berry, and Taylor (2016) note that anembodied pedagogical approach is yet another vital element that is seen as typicallymissing in traditional practice and teacher education in particular. Macintyre Lattaand Buck (2008) define activist pedagogies as ones that “integrate the mind, bodyand emotions” thus “holistic” (Forgasz, 2015, cited in McDonough et al., 2016,p. 433). Kirk et al. (2018) outline several key strengths of their activist pedagogicalmodel, which are highly relevant to languages education. Importantly, teachers andstudents had the freedom to co-construct curriculum through project work and linkinto community groups thus creating new holistic learning spaces where they couldcritically reflect together on their practice.

In this activist model, students were provided agency such that the input of theirvoices into the pedagogy changed the nature of the discourse away from the

Fig. 2 Counternormative pedagogy for social justice. (Source: Camicelli & Boluk, 2017, p. 132;Displayed with permission from the authors)

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 57

traditional instructivist language. Camicelli and Boluk (2017) also found, as men-tioned above, that through engaging with the community, students became moreaware of the issues and the need for social justice, and to approach the situation in aproactive way. This supports Oliver, Hamzeh, and McCaughtry, (2009) who foundthat involving students in developing their own curriculum facilitated their activistengagement and increased their autonomy as learners. The Change Agency (2018)also views activist education as promoting pedagogical strategies that can “effectjustice-oriented social change.” Underpinned by the work of Freire (1970), theirpedagogical principles include:

• experiential and empowered learning• listening and reflection• mentorship• questioning, not telling• exercises linked to real and contemporary change work• building a ‘container’ or learning environment characterized by trust, openness,

honesty, self-critique, mutual respect and support (para. 2)

While these principles provide further insights into how activist pedagogy mightbe applied in practice, it is clear that, with regards to activist languages education forpromoting social justice in superdiverse communities, and in keeping with Leeman,Rabin, and Roman-Mendoza’s (2011) stance, the importance of people’s “identity”is a core consideration. They note that students’ home identities have always beenseen as synonymous with the teaching of home languages and bilingual education.Moreover, in line with the important point made earlier in this chapter, they note thatdata are available that support the necessity for education to take account of this:Study after study has found that the retention of non-English languages by second-and third-generation Americans, as well as other minority language and bilingualstudents, is correlated with greater academic and socioeconomic success, and there isnow widespread consensus that the best educational programs recognize and valuestudents’ home identities, building upon their existing linguistic and cultural knowl-edge (Leeman et al., 2011, pp. 483–484).

Not surprisingly, their activist approach comprised a critical service learningmodel where pre-service teachers worked in the community to develop participants’identities as Spanish home language speakers. This assisted in addressing the“dominant ideologies that construct bilingual and home language speakers as‘limited’ or ‘deficient’ (p. 487), which is one issue that activist languages educationcan address. Leeman et al. (2011) note that this participatory and student-centeredmodel is an alternative space for mutual learning: “[t]he on-site and online interac-tions among student teachers and with the children, all from diverse ethnic, socio-linguistic, and geographic backgrounds helped both groups to grasp the socialconstructedness of ‘identity’ and ‘culture’” (p. 492). Not dissimilar to the idea ofthe “flipped classroom” (Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013), this activist pedagogyprovides a deeper learning experience for students by ensuring they are fully

58 T. Lamb et al.

engaged in meaningful and challenging learning environments in which they haveagency in co-constructing their learning experiences (Tochon, 2014).

The work of Preston and Aslett (2014) also exemplifies the implementation ofactivist pedagogy in relation to social work courses, but, as they note, their strategiescould be applicable to any learning context/discipline. They highlight the relevanceof the work of Giroux (2010a) in the need to create learning spaces where strongrelationships can be built with personalized learning and open discussion based onanti-oppressive principles, therefore allowing discussion of social inequities. Thus,their approach to activist pedagogy involves critical pedagogical practices (citingButte, 2007 and Giroux, 2010b, p. 514) as opposed to those emanating fromneoliberalism. They highlight “[t]hese approaches seemed necessary to create aspace in the classroom for dismantling entrenched but misinformed ideas and toopening new ways of thinking” (p. 510). In their aim to address social injusticeissues in social work through activist pedagogy, their definition of this approach ishighly relevant to the present chapter. Of note is that Preston and Aslett (2014) state:As a working definition, we propose activist pedagogy as: a complicating approachto education that exposes, acknowledges and unpacks social injustices, implicatespersonal and structural histories and currencies, and is founded in a commitment topersonal and social change both inside and outside the classroom and the academy. Itrecognizes the historical material context but avoids reification of such contextthrough fluid explorations of power, subjectivity and social relations. An activistpedagogical strategy attempts to do this through building a community of activistlearners and educators in the classroom, with tangible and meaningful opportunitiesto initiate and advocate for change. Such an approach goes beyond the criticalpedagogy stance, which can become mired in democratic principles ignoring fluidsubjectivities and oppressive conditions of capitalism. Similarly, activist pedagogyexpands a problem-posing education to a different level, situating constructivistknowledges in the material lived experiences of communities (p. 514).

Strategy 6: Toward an Activist Languages Education Pedagogy

In summary, based on evidence of current activist pedagogical approaches and thepresent review of literature in the field of languages education and multiculturalism,the authors define “activist languages education” as:

the provision of a critical and embodied pedagogical approach in education, workplaces andcommunities that enhances all community members’ capacity to build their capital toconnect, communicate, collaborate, learn and construct their identities and to gain a senseof “being in place” from an allocentric perspective within the frame of multicultural/multilingual society.

Thus, the following principles are derived and are argued to underpin this stance.Activist languages education requires:

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 59

1. Languages education policy, curriculum, pedagogy, and practices that createsocial connectedness, value home and home languages and cultures as keyresources in inquiry-based contexts for learning, engage the collective autonomyof communities, challenge monolingual mind-sets, foster interlinguality, andnurture a plurilingual habitus

2. A multidimensional lens; multicultural, anti-racist, and intersectional approachesto education more broadly; and socially inclusive policy and practices, involvingan activist approach for socially just outcomes

3. Valuing of all participants’ existing, knowledge, skills, needs, and aspirations4. Participants’ agency and voice in active learning design5. Mentoring, collaborative capacity building, and mutual benefits6. Bottom-up, authentic, participatory, dialogic, and interactive learning spaces,

supported by access to digital communication technologies and occurring beyondeducational spaces to include other public urban spaces

The intent of implementing these principles is to create a major change inmonolinguistic societal attitude to one where there is a shift toward the allocentric,plurilinguistic view through the adoption of “activist” languages education. This isan approach that challenges the traditional mind-set of monolingual societies andalso the traditional approaches to education in general. It draws attention to theimportance of shifting both established members of communities and those consid-ered as newly arrived members of superdiverse communities from their “out ofplace” perspective to that of “being in place” (Blommaert et al., 2005, p. 198).Although these two groups are out of place for different reasons, the journey towarda socially just society involves change for all. A socially just outcome requiresmembers of monolingual communities to acknowledge that they also need to makechanges and, moreover, that there are significant benefits in that. It is well establishedthat the need to rethink Western education is more than overdue (Hargreaves &Fullen, 2012). The authors also argue that the concept of activist languages educa-tion, as defined above, is at the core of the paradigm shift needed to move on fromthe present stagnating industrial model to one of ongoing active, collaborative,social, and identity capacity building (Côté, 2006) that can cater for the ever-increasing challenge of migratory flows. The beginnings of change are evident inHurwitz and Olsen’s (2018) languages model applied to superdiverse, pre-K-3classrooms where five or more different home languages are spoken. Teachersundertake professional development to teach, and the children are able to use theirhome language and learn the languages of their peers beside English. “Teacherscreate classroom environments and activities that incorporate the cultures andcommunity experiences of their students, and that allow students to connect theirlife at home to their life at school, and design activities that engage families inteaching and learning related themes” (p. 6). Similarly, it has been found that wherestudents in mainstream have learned community languages, they have excelled bothin becoming bilingual and in their academic studies (Tovares & Kamwangamalu,2017); other current initiatives that are in keeping with activist languages educationinclude Clifford and Reisinger’s (2018) community-based language learning

60 T. Lamb et al.

framework that fosters languages learning through engaging with the communitythrough service learning.

Thus, in acknowledging the importance of the development of the requisite“languages” skills for members of superdiverse communities to be able to effectivelycommunicate to meet their family, social, work-related, and academic needs, as wellas to engage in convivial interactions with one another, the authors argue that such ashift requires changes to policy and practice in alignment with the above principlesof activist languages education. It would seem that the established baseline ofdemonstrating “native speaker level” proficiency as the goal of languages learning,as noted by Creese and Blackledge (2010), needs to change to be flexible accordingto purpose. For instance, Moore (2016) emphasizes that “even knowing a few wordsor phrases of ancestral language – or perhaps more robust genres of performancesuch as traditional songs – enables younger people . . . to think of themselves, and infact to be, something more than monolingual speakers of English” (Ikuta, 2009).Moore (2016) advocates moving beyond the notion of this baseline to a view wherethe collaboration and pooling of linguistics resources support a focus “on the way therole of speaker can be decomposed according to level of fluency speech-event role-fractions like animator, author and principal” (p. 86). Applicable to languageslearning in contemporary settings of globalization and diversity, it adds to theunderstanding of the shift that is necessary to support the making of meaning incontext/place. With this in mind, the authors propose a new understanding of abaseline communication target as one that reflects adaptability and flexibilityaccording to communicative needs and purpose and which relates to the implemen-tation of the principles of activist languages education. As shown in Fig. 3, thiswould ensure that, through activist languages education, all members of societywould embark on a journey toward “being in place,” thus actively building thecapacity of communities to benefit from their superdiversity. In this model theachievement of the baseline communication target would provide the way forwardto enable the shift to a more level playing field with more socially just practices that

Fig. 3 The concept of baseline communication target for the growth and embedding of “activistlanguages education.” (Source: The present authors)

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 61

foster collaboration to achieve knowledge building multilingual/multicultural com-munities in keeping with the vision of Bindé (2005), so simultaneously providing abetter space to foster peace.

Conclusion

This chapter’s exploration of the need for activist languages education presents a callto action to address the social injustices present in superdiverse contexts. It critiquesthe rhetoric of related policies, curriculum, pedagogy, and practices, arguing theneed for an urgent paradigmatic shift to reform education and move forward toachieve more socially just outcomes. It challenges the claims to multicultural statusand to the success of multiculturalism made by monolingually minded countriessuch as the UK and Australia, as well as European states, and draws attention to theneed for current systems and practices to change to ensure social inclusion. Inter-disciplinary research and scholarship that address how an activist pedagogicalapproach is able to transform learning are used to define the concept of “activistlanguages education” and the development of associated pedagogical principles.Incorporating these into a model that promotes bottom-up, authentically participa-tory, dialogic, interactive learning spaces that provide access to digital communica-tion technologies means that other significant changes are required. For instance,implementing the principle of “languages education policy, curriculum, pedagogy,and practices that create social connectedness, value home and heritage languagesand cultures as key resources in inquiry-based contexts for learning, engage thecollective autonomy of communities, foster interlinguality, challenge monolingualmind-sets, and nurture a plurilingual habitus” requires significant changes. Itdemands changes in attitude toward educational practices regarding the way bothlanguages education and education in general are traditionally viewed in monolin-gual societies. The traditional perception that languages education is an “add-on”and unnecessary for most students/people/employees because “everyone speaks or islearning English” needs to be challenged. This demands attitudinal change, which isnot easy given, as principle 2 highlights the need to change from a language lens tothat of a multidimensional lens, where curricula include anti-racist education and aredesigned to ensure socially inclusive policy, practices, and active approaches toeducation to ensure socially just outcomes. Similarly, principles 3, 4, and 5 enlargeupon how activist pedagogy will be visible in practice. They emphasize how allparticipants’ existing, knowledge, skills, needs, and aspirations need to be valuedand be at the core of practice and how participants’ agency and voice should be partand parcel of active learning design. Recognition of mentoring and bringing that tothe fore will ensure critical pedagogies that enable collaborative capacity buildingand the accruing of mutual benefits to learners, teachers, workplaces, and commu-nities. In turn, the “lifting” of the languages education achievement of superdiversecommunities, including their monolingual counterparts, to the proposed flexiblebaseline communication target, provides a feasible step toward successfully chal-lenging social injustice. It is argued that this new paradigm has the capacity to bring

62 T. Lamb et al.

attention to and eliminate social injustice in such communities through the adoptionof “bottom-up, authentic, participatory, dialogic, interactive learning spaces,supported by access to digital communication technologies and occurring beyondeducational spaces to include other public urban spaces.” In the long term, this willbuild community capacity and simultaneously provide a better space for multilin-gualism and a foundation for peace by addressing the monolingual mind-set.

While a difficult challenge, it is recommended that policy be developed at alllevels of government and that education curriculum and pedagogy, including thelanguages curriculum, are developed with wide consultation that includes a com-mitment to participatory approaches with cross-sector education, community, busi-ness, and industry stakeholders. There is a need for a review of and provision forboth in-service and preservice teacher education in order to ensure that teachersacross disciplines are educated and pedagogically equipped to acknowledge thatlanguages education is at the core of communication and student capacity buildingfor success, to implement activist pedagogy, and to challenge the monolingualhabitus. To stimulate the level of transformation required, there is a need to considermore than the education sector and the community. The education of other pro-fessions such as police, health, and urban designers, as well as government depart-ments and other services/service industries and workforces, is essential as changeneeds to occur beyond educational spaces. Finally, the use of digital communicationtechnology as part of the glue that facilitates strong connectivity and its transforma-tive potential as a catalyst for change should not be underestimated. It has thecapacity to be the most powerful tool to influence the degree of change required toaddress social injustice and to prepare society for increasing levels of superdiversityand multilingualism, as it moves toward the third decade of the new millennium.

References

Abbott-Chapman, J. (2011). Making the most of the mosaic: Facilitating post-school transitions tohigher education of disadvantaged students. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(3),57–71.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). 3412.0 – Migration, Australia, 2016–17. Canberra, ACT:Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3412.0Main%20Features52016-17?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3412.0&issue=2016-17&num=&view=

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2018). Asia and Australia’s engage-ment with Asia. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/cross-curriculum-priorities/asia-and-australia-s-engagement-with-asia/

Australian Government. (2018). Annual report 2017–18. Department of Home Affairs. Canberra,ACT: Australian Government.

Australian Multicultural Advisory Council. (2013). The people of Australia: Australia’s multicul-tural policy. Canberra, ACT: Australian Multicultural Advisory Council. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/system/files/27232/apo-nid27232-75716.pdf

Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2003). Who’s afraid of bilingualism? In J.-M. De Waele, A. Housen, & L.Wei (Eds.), Bilingualism – Beyond basic principles (pp. 10–27). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 63

Bailey, R. P., Collins, D., Ford, P., MacNamara, A., Toms, M., & Pearce, G. (2009). Participantdevelopment in sport: An academic review. Leeds, UK: Sports Coach.

Barkhuizen, G., & Knoch, U. (2006). Macro-level policy and micro-level planning: Afrikaans-speaking immigrants in New Zealand. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 1–18.

Batsaikhan, U., Darvas, Z., & Raposo, I. G. (2018). People on the move: Migration and mobility inthe European Union. Brussels, Belgium: Bruegel. Retrieved from http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/People_on_the_move_ONLINE.pdf

Bauman, Z. (2011). Culture in a liquid modern world. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Baynham, M., & De Fina, A. (Eds.). (2005). Dislocations and relocations: Narratives of displace-

ment. Manchester, UK: St Jerome Publishing.Bindé, J. (Coord.) (2005). Towards knowledge societies: UNESCO world report (UNESCO refer-

ence works series). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001418/141843e.pdf

Blackledge, A., Creese, A., Baynham, M., Cooke, M., Goodson, L., Hua, Z., . . . Wei, L. (2018).Language and superdiversity: An interdisciplinary perspective. In A. Creese, & A. Blackledge(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and superdiversity (pp. 1–29). London, England:Routledge.

Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language &Communication, 25, 197–216.

Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723–744.Bourdieu, P. (1994). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity

Press (original work published 1990).British Council. (2013). Language rich Europe: Multilingualism for stable and prosperous socie-

ties. London, England: British Council.Bullivant, B. M. (1986). Ethnolinguistic minorities and multicultural policy in Australia. In J.

Edwards (Ed.), Linguistic minorities, policies and pluralism (pp. 107–140). London, England:Academic.

Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503–523. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams056

Butte, S. (2010). Freire: Informal education as protest. Journal for Critical Education PolicyStudies, 8, 162–180.

Calhoun, C., Sennett, R., & Shapira, H. (2013). Poiesis means making. Public Culture, 25(2),195–200.

Camicelli, S., & Boluk, K. (2017). The promotion of social justice: Service learning for transformativeeducation. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 21(Part B), 126–134.

Castles, S. (1992). The challenge of multiculturalism: Global changes and Australian experiences.(Working Paper 19, p. 109). Centre for Multicultural Studies, University of Wollongong. http://ro.uow.edu.au/cmsworkpapers/17

Castles, S. (2014). International migration at a crossroads. Citizenship Studies, 18(2), 190–207.Chen, H-I. (2013). Identity practices of multicultural writers in social networking spaces. Language

Learning and Technology, 17(2), 143–170. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2013/chen.pdf

Chimni, B. S. (1998). The geopolitics of refugee studies. Journal of Refugee Studies, 11(4),350–374.

Clyne, M. (2008). The monolingual mindset as an impediment to the development of plurilingualpotential. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2(3), 347–366.

Community Languages Australia. (2017). Language policy. Carlton, VIC: Australian Federation ofEthnic Schools Associations. Retrieved from http://www.communitylanguagesaustralia.org.au/language-policy/

Côté, J. E. (2006). Acculturation and identity: The role of individualisation theory. HumanDevelopment, 49, 31–35.

Council of Europe. (2017). Education and languages, language policy. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Division_EN.asp

Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy forlearning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115.

64 T. Lamb et al.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality and politics, and violence againstwomen of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.

Crul, M. (2016). Super-diversity vs. assimilation: How complex diversity in majority–minoritycities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,42(1), 54–68.

Czaika, M., & de Haas, H. (2014). The globalization of migration: Has the world become moremigratory? International Migration Review, 48(2), 283–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12095

Dahlgren, P. (2015). Cosmopolitanism and international communication: Understanding civilsociety actors. In C.-C. Lee (Ed.), Internationalizing “international communication” (pp.281–301). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Department for Education and Skills. (2002). Language learning. Nottingham, UK: DfES.Department of Education, Employment and Training. (1991). Australia’s language: The Australian

language and literacy policy (Vol. 1–2). Canberra, ACT: Australian Government PublishingService.

Department of Education, Training and Employment. (2014). Global schools through languages.Brisbane, QLD: DETE. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/framework/p-12/globalschools.html

Department of Home Affairs. (2017). Live in Australia: Country profiles. Canberra, ACT. Retrievedfrom https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/reports-publications/research-statistics/statistics/live-in-australia/country-profiles

Department of Immigration & Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. (1999). A new agenda formulticultural Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth Australia.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2011). Fact sheet 6 Australia’s multicultural policy.Canberra, ACT: National Communications Branch. Retrieved from https://www.mia.org.au/documents/item/232

Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. (2003). Report of the reviewof settlement services for migrants and humanitarian entrants. Canberra, ACT: AustralianGovernment. Retrieved from http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/delivering-assistance/government-programs/settlement-policy/review-settlement-services.htm

Faiola, A. (2015, April 21). A global surge in refugees leaves Europe struggling to cope. TheWashington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/new-migration-crisis-overwhelms-european-refugee-system/2015/04/21/3ab83470-e45c-11e4-ae0f-f8c46aa8c3a4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3dc62af1f41

Forgasz, R. (2015). Bring the physical into self-study research. In A. Ovens & T. Fletcher (Eds.),Self-study in physical education teacher education: Exploring the interplay of scholarship andpractice (pp. 15–28). Zug, Switzerland: Springer.

Freeman, L. A., & Stayley, B. (2018). The positioning of Aboriginal students and their languageswithin Australia’s education system: A human rights perspective. International Journal ofSpeech Language, 20(1), 174–181.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.) New York, NY: Herderand Herder.

Full Fact. (2017). Refugees in the UK. 6th March. Retrieved from https://fullfact.org/immigration/uk-refugees/

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden,MA/Oxford: Basil/Blackwell.

Giroux, H. A. (2010a). Bare pedagogy and the scourge of neoliberalism: Rethinking highereducation as a democratic public sphere. The Educational Forum, 74, 184–196.

Giroux, H. A. (2010b). Lessons from Paulo Freire. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(9),15–16.

Glick Schiller, N., Çaglar, A., & Guldbrandsen, T. C. (2006). Beyond the ethnic lens: Locality,globality, and born-again incorporation. American Ethnologist, 33(4), 612–633. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2006.33.4.612

Gogolin, I. (2002). Linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe: A challenge for educational researchand practice. European Educational Research Journal, 1, 123–138.

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 65

Hajek, J., & Slaughter, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Challenging the monolingual mindset. Bristol, UK:Multilingual Matters.

Hall, S. M. (2017). Mooring “super-diversity” to a brutal migration milieu. Ethnic and RacialStudies, 40(9), 1562–1573.

Hamers, J. F. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Hargreaves, A., & Fullen, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school.

New York, NY: Routledge.Hatoss, A. (2012a). Multilingualism as social capital in the Sudanese-Australian diaspora: Impli-

cations for policy. In C. Gitsaki & R. B. Baldauf (Eds.), The future of applied linguistics: Localand global perspectives (pp. 390–408). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge ScholarsPublishing.

Hatoss, A. (2012b). Where are you from? Identity construction and experiences of ‘othering’ in thenarratives of Sudanese refugee-background Australians. Discourse and Society, 23, 47–68.https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419925

Hatoss, A. (2013). Displacement, language maintenance and identity: Sudanese refugees inAustralia (Vol. 1). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.http://benjamins.com/catalog/impact

Hatoss, A. (2018). Bringing home languages to the fore: Policy insights for superdiverse commu-nities. In K. Harrison, S. M, & F. Tochon (Eds.), Displacement Planet Earth. Plurilingualeducation and identity for 21st century schools (pp. 96–114). Blue Mounds, WI: Deep Univer-sity Press.

Hatoss, A. (2019a). Agency in bottom-up planning: Motives of language maintenance in the SouthSudanese community of Australia. In J. Bouchard & G. P. Glasgow (Eds.), Researching agencyin language policy and planning (pp. 35–60). London, England: Routledge.

Hatoss, A. (2019b). Unpacking monolingual ideologies: Voices of young Sydneysiders. In A. Chik,P. Benson, & R. Moloney (Eds.), The multilingual city: Sydney case studies (pp. 66–78).London, NY: Routledge.

Hatoss, A., & Huijser, H. (2010). Gendered barriers to educational opportunities: Resettlement ofSudanese refugees in Australia. Gender and Education, 22, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250903560497

Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.). (1996). Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning fromthe bottom up. Berlin, Germany: Mouton.

Horner, K., & Weber, J.-J. (2011). Not playing the game: Shifting patterns in the discourse ofintegration. Journal of Language and Politics, 10(20), 139–159.

Howard, J. P. F. (1998). Academic service learning: A counternormative pedagogy. New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning, 73, 21–29.

Hurwitz, A., & Olsen, L. (2018). Supporting dual language learner success in superdiverse PreK-3classrooms: The Sobrato early academic language model. Washington, DC: Migration PolicyInstitute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/supporting-dual-language-learner-success-superdiversity/SuperdiversityTheSEALModel_Final.pdf

Ikuta, H. (2009). Endangered language and performance art in an Alaskan Eskimo community.Paper presented at annual meeting of American Anthropological Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Inglis, C. (2004). Australia’s continuing transformation. August 1. Washington, DC: MigrationPolicy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/australias-continuing-transformation

Inner London Education Authority. (1983). Race, sex and class: 2. Multiethnic education inschools. London, England: Inner London Education Authority.

Jacquemet, M. (2005). Transidiomatic practices: Language and power in the age of globalization.Language & Communication, 25, 257–277.

Jørgensen, J. N., Karrebæk, M. S., Madsen, L. M., & Møller, J. S. (2011). Polylanguaging insuperdiversity. Diversities, 13, 23–38.

King’s College London. (2015, September 04). Why do refugees and migrants come to Europe, andwhat must be done to ease the crisis? The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.

66 T. Lamb et al.

uk/news/worldnews/europe/11845205/Why-do-refugees-and-migrants-come-to-Europe-and-what-must-be-done-to-ease-the-crisis.html

Kirk, D., Lamb, C. A., Oliver, K. L., Ewing-Day, R., Fleming, C., Loch, A., & Smedley, V. (2018).Balancing prescription with teacher and pupil agency: Spaces for manoeuvre within a peda-gogical model for working with adolescent girls. The Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 219–237.

Krebs, M., Katira, K., Singh, S., & Rigsbee, N. (2013). TEACHERCORPS: Transforming teachereducation through social justice, service learning, and community partnerships. In V. M. Jagla, J.A. Erikson, & A. S. Tinkler (Eds.), Transforming teacher education through service learning(pp. 237–261). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Labov, W. (2010). Principles of linguistic change: Cognitive and cultural factors. Oxford, UK:Wiley-Blackwell.

Lamb, T. E. (1999). Responding to cultural and linguistic diversity in the primary school. In P.Bertaux, F. Garcier, & C. Kerviel (Eds.), La Dimension Européenne dans l’enseignement:Enjeux, Réalités et Perspectives (pp. 25–36). Nancy, France: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.

Lamb, T. E. (2011). Reconceptualising intercultural education: A model from language education.Hermeneia, a Journal of Hermeneutics, Art Theory and Criticism, 11, 79–87.

Lamb, T. E. (2015). Towards a plurilingual habitus: Engendering interlinguality in urban spaces.International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 10(2), 151–165.

Lamb, T. E., & Vodicka, G. (2018). Collective autonomy and multilingual spaces in super-diverseurban contexts: Interdisciplinary perspectives. In G. Murray & T. E. Lamb (Eds.), Space, placeand autonomy in language learning (pp. 9–28). Oxon, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

Leeman, J., Rabin, L., & Roman-Mendoza, E. (2011). Identity and activism in heritage languageeducation. The Modern Language Journal, 95(iv), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01237

Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). Pragmatics and intercultural mediation in intercultural language learning.Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 259–277.

Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contextsand interactions. In A. J. Liddicoat & R. B. Baldauf Jr. (Eds.), Language planning and policy:Language planning in local contexts (pp. 3–17). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Lin, C.-H., Warschauer, M., & Blake, R. (2016). Language learning through social networks:Perceptions and reality. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 124–147. Retrieved fromhttp://www.lltjournal.org/collection/col_10125_45832

Lo Bianco, J. (2008). Language policy and education in Australia. In S. May & N. Hornberger(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language policy and political issues ineducation (pp. 343–353). Boston, MA: Springer.

Macintyre Latta, M., & Buck, G. (2008). Enfleshing embodiment: “Failing to trust” with the body’srole in teaching and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2), 315–329.

May, S. (2014). Contesting public monolingualism and diglossia: Rethinking political theory andlanguage policy for a multilingual world. Language Policy, 13, 371–393.

McDonough, S., Forgasz, R., Berry, A., & Taylor, M. (2016). All brain and still no body: Movingtowards a pedagogy of embodiment in teacher education. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.),Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 433–439). USA: Self-Study ofTeacher Education Practices (S-STEP) https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/all-brain-and-still-no-body-moving-towards-a-pedagogy-of-embodime.

McGrew, A. (1997). Democracy beyond borders? Globalization and the reconstruction of demo-cratic theory and polities. In A. McGrew (Ed.), The transformation of democracy (pp. 231–265).Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

McNiff, J. (2013). Becoming cosmopolitan and other dilemmas of internationalization: Reflectionsfrom the Gulf States. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 501–515.

Meissner, F., & Vertovec, S. (2015). Comparing super-diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(4),541–555.

Ministerial Council of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2003). Nationalreport on schooling. Canberra, ACT: Author.

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 67

Ministerial Council of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2005). Nationalstatement for languages education in Australian schools: National plan for languages educa-tion in Australian schools 2005–2008. Richmond, SA: Hyde Park Press.

Modood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism: A civic idea. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Molderez, I., & Fonseca, E. (2018). The efficacy of real-world experiences and service learning for

fostering competences for sustainable development in higher education. Journal of CleanerProduction, 172, 4397–4410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.062

Moloney, R. (2018, July 4). Learning languages early is key to making Australia more multilingual.The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/learning-languages-early-is-key-to-making-australia-more-multilingual-99085

Moore, R. (2016). Taking up speech’ in an endangered language: Bilingual discourse in a heritageclassroom. In K. Amaut, M. S. Karrebaek, M. Spottie, & J. Blommaart (Eds.), Engagingsuperdiversity: Recombining spaces, times and language spaces (pp. 65–89). Bristol, UK:Multilingual Matters.

Mullard, C. (1982).Multiracial education inBritain: From assimilation to cultural pluralism. In J. Tierney(Ed.), Race, migration and schooling (pp. 15–27). London, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Ndhlovu, F. (2015). Ignored lingualism: Another resource for overcoming the monolingual mindsetin language education policy. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 35(4), 398–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2015.1087365

Nuffield Foundation. (2000). Languages: The next generation. London, England: The NuffieldFoundation.

O’Neill, S. (2019). New opportunities for languages learning through 21st century knowledgebuilding communities. In R. Arber, M. Weinmann, & J. Blackmore (Eds.), Rethinking lan-guages education: Directions, challenges and innovations. New York, NY: Routledge.

O’Neill, S., & Hatoss, A. (2003). Harnessing a nation’s linguistic competence: Identifying andaddressing needs for LOTE in the tourism and hospitality industry. Australian Review of AppliedLinguistics, 26(2), 31–45.

Office of Multicultural Affairs. (1995). Productive diversity in the tourism industry: Capitalising onthe language and cultural skills of Australians. Canberra, ACT: AGPS.

Oliver, K. L., Hamzeh, M., & McCaughtry, N. (2009). Girly girls can play games/Las ni~naspueden jugar tambien: Co-creating a curriculum of possibilities with 5th grade girls. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 28(1), 90–110.

Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E. (2015). Metrolingualism: Language in the city. Abingdon, UK:Routledge.

Phillips, A., Bolduc, S. R., & Gallo, M. (2013). Curricular placement of academic service-learningin higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 17(4), 75–96.

Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice. An introduction to applied sociolinguistics.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Preston, S., & Aslett, J. (2014). Resisting neoliberalism from within the academy: Subversionthrough an activist pedagogy. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(4), 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2013.848270

Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Rampton, B., Blommaert, J., Arnaut, K., & Spotti, M. (2015). Superdiversity and sociolinguistics(Working papers in urban language and literacies, paper 152). London, England: King’s College.

Renzaho, A. M. N., Dhingra, N., & Georgeou, N. (2017). Youth as contested sites of culture: Theintergenerational acculturation gap amongst new migrant communities – Parent and young adultperspectives. PLoS One, 12(2), 1–19.e0170700. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170700

Rienzo, C., & Vargas-Silva, C. (2018). Migrants in the UK: An overview. Migration ObservatoryBriefing, COMPAS, University of Oxford, August.

Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engagemillennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences.,105(2), 44–49.

68 T. Lamb et al.

Scarino, A. (2014). Situating the challenges in current languages education policy in Australia –unlearning monolingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2014.921176

Siedentop, D. (1996). Valuing the physical active life: Contemporary and future directions. Quest,48(3), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1996.10484196

Silverstein, M. (1998). Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. AnnualReview of Anthropology, 27, 401–426.

Smolicz, J. J. (1991). Language core values in a multicultural setting: An Australian experience.International Review of Education, 37(1), 33–52.

Souto-Manning,M. (2006). Families learn together: Reconceptualising linguistic diversity as a resource.Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 443–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-005-0051-1

Soyoof, A. (2018). Video game and culture: A case study of EFL student players’ views on theiracquisition of cultural knowledge and sensitivity. International Journal of Pedagogies andLearning, 13(2), 91–102.

Street-Porter, R. (1978). Race, children and cities. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Taket, A., Crisp, B. R., Nevill, A., Lamaro, G., Graham, M., & Barter-Godfrey, S. (Eds.). (2009).

Theorising social exclusion. New York, NY: Routledge.The Change Agency. (2018). Activist education. Retrieved from https://www.thechangeagency.org/

campaigners-toolkit/activist-education/Tochon, F. V. (2014).Help them learn a language deeply – Francois Victor Tochon’s deep approach

to world languages and cultures. Wisconsin, MI: Deep University Press.Tovares, A. V., & Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2017). Migration trajectories: Implications for language

proficiencies and identities. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration andlanguage (pp. 207–227). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

UK News. (2018). 27th June. White Brits set to become minority in Birmingham report reveals.Retrieved from https://www.rt.com/uk/431058-birmingham-muslim-ethnic-white/

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2016). UNHCR global trends: Forced displace-ment in 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34.pdf

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2017). Left behind: Refugee education in crisis.Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/59b696f44.pdf

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2018). Figures at a glance. The UN RefugeeAgency. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054.Vertovec, S. (2012). Diversity and the social imaginary.European Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 287–312.Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities

by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035

Wessendorf, S. (2015). ‘All the people speak bad English’: Coping with language differences in asuper-diverse context. IRiS working paper series, No. 9/2015. Birmingham, UK: Institute forResearch into Superdiversity. Retrieved from https://languageforwork.ecml.at/Portals/48/ICT_REV_LFW/Coping%20with%20language%20differences.pdf

Wright, C. F., & Clibborn, S. (2017). Back door, side door or front door: An emerging de-factorlow-skilled immigration policy in Australia. Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J, 39, 165.

Wright, P., & Skidmore, D. (2010). Mutiliteracies and games: Do cybergamers dream pedagogicsheep. In D. L. Pullen, C. Gitsaki, & M. Baguley (Eds.), Technoliteracy, discourse, and socialpractice: Frameworks and applications in the digital age (pp. 220–231). Hershey, PA: NewYork Information Science Reference.

Yildiz, Y. (2012). Beyond the mother tongue: The postmonolingual condition. New York, NY:Fordham University Press.

Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personaland cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0072

2 Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . . 69