CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is supposed to improve existing deficiencies in the formal learning of foreign languages (FL) in state schools of the EU, with at least no detrimental cost to the content learning. Apart from this basic justification, which has already been questioned on the basis of the empirical evidence by this author, other benefits are often enumerated. However, it will be shown that for most of the pro-CLIL arguments there are equally valid counterarguments, and, in some cases, contrary empirical evidence, or even a lack of any evidence. Given this, the suggestion here is that there are a number of implicit reasons for the adoption of CLIL, the most obvious being student selection. One conclusion worthy of concern is that the interest in CLIL diverts attention away from the shortcomings of mainstream FL teaching in state schools and the plight of numerous non-CLIL students, including perhaps many of the less privileged, who maybe are still not receiving the FL instruction they deserve.