SLA: Formulating an Effective Dual Language Policy

In decisions about language separation and allocation in a bilingual classroom, there are other ingredients and contexts that must be taken into account before formulating an effective dual language policy.

The aims of the school must be examined carefully, in terms of language preservation and second language competence.  School teachers are language planners, even if subconsciously.  If the children's minority language is to  be preserved, then separation may be a central policy element.  When teachers are more enthusiastic about majority (second language) competence, then different practices and outcomes, in terms of language allocation, will be desired.  Fewer language boundaries may be maintained, since loosening them helps ensure development of the majority language.  

The nature of the students must be considered in any policy regarding language boundaries and concurrent use, with policies and practices adjusted to age and grade level.  If language development is still at an early evolutionary stage, boundary setting is more important.  With older children, whose languages are relative well developed, the concurrent use of two languages may be more viable and desirable.  Older children may have more stability and separation in their language abilities.

Furthermore, this suggests that a static policy with regard to boundaries, and concurrent use within the school is less justifiable than a progressive policy that examines different applications across years and grade levels.  Early separation may be very important.  Later, in high school, a more concurrent use may encourage conceptual clarity, depth of understanding and cognitive development.

For a progressive policy it is necessary to consider different types of classroom communication.  When the teacher speaks more informally and simply to the class, the weaker language may be appropriate.  In practical activities, also, where there is context embedded help, the weaker language may serve well.  Where the cognitive level is higher in transmitting the curriculum, as with more complex, abstract ideas, either the stronger language or a bilingual approach may be needed.  Different types of classroom episodes, such as managerial, instructional and practical activity, constrain or allow comprehensible second language communication and concurrent usage.

Different dimensions of the school need individual discussions related to separation and integration of languages, for example in curriculum, whole school policies, classrooms and lessons.  At what level of organization should separation occur?  Our earlier discussion of language separation by curriculum material and medium of delivery showed that language separation is not a distinct issue from rational concurrent use, but merges into a consideration of integrated use.

Another important factor in deciding language separation issues is class language balance.  If all the children are native speakers of one language, it may be easy to determine a language allocation.  With mixed classes there are differing balances of majority and minority languages.  Who dominates numerically, linguistically and psychologically?  When the balance is tilted against language minority children, a clear separation, with the curriculum balance toward the minority language may be desirable.  Whether the student body is language minority in a subtractive or additive situation should also affect language allocation policies.

Where language minority children are the numerical majority, a slow change, rather that a sharp shift from language separation to concurrent use is advisable.  The minority language often risks perception as less powerful or useful, and lower in status, as children grow older.  Therefore, the minority language must be protected and keep a constant high profile in the school.

School language policy must take into account 'out of school exposure' to the first and second languages.  Sometimes, equal time is advocated to each language within the school, half the curriculum in one, half in the other.  However, if the child is surrounded by the majority language outside the school, on the street, in shops and through the media, then perhaps the separation balance ought to be adjusted toward the minority language in school.  'Out of school' exposure may also make some teachers hesitant about concurrent usage.

Replication and duplication of content threaten bilingual classroom methodology, since some pupils will not concentrate when the same subject matter is repeated in a different language.  However, repetition is sometimes pragmatically necessary.  Where there is a considerable variety of different home and preferred language, a teacher and bilingual assistant may need to repeat instruction in different languages.  There are some multilingual classrooms, in New York, Toronto and London, with a diversity of home languages among the children.  Replication of teaching in two or three languages may be essential for children in the early grades, so that as many as possible can comprehend.  This complicates debates about concurrent use and language boundaries.  One solution is small group learning, as seen in progressive British and North American primary schools.  This may allow establishment of some language boundaries, with different children addressed by bilingual teachers and aides, in their preferred language.

The use of non-repetitive and non-parallel bilingual materials, built in an incremental and well sequenced and structured manner, is valuable, particularly in high schools.  However, the production and availability of materials in many minority languages is difficult to achieve, and funding for such materials may be difficult to secure.

In a concurrent and purposeful use of two classroom languages, as advocated by Jacobson (1990), there is the danger of requiring teachers to manage an unnatural, artificial and highly complex language situation.  Where teachers are expected to manage concurrent use of two languages in a classroom, they are assumed to have a very high level of management skill, monitoring and reflection.  In reality, classrooms are busy, very fluid, often unpredictable places.  Teachers must react to the moment, to individuals who don't understand, with many unpredictable and spontaneous situations.  Students themselves have an important influence on classroom language uses, needing to share understanding (or lack of it) in the most appropriate way.  Classroom management of learning and behavior must be fluent, accepted by students, not abrupt and unpredictable.  Classroom language allocation must fit naturally, predictably, fluently and flexibly into curriculum management.

Bilingualism and Metalinguistic Awareness

From Colin Baker's The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals:

Young bilinguals sometimes have an enhanced ability to focus on the important content and meaning of language, rather than its external structure or sound. For example, a bilingual child is taught a nursery rhyme. Rather than merely learning the words by rote and concentrating on the rhyme, some young bilingual children seem to focus more (compared with monolinguals) on the meaning and story. Does this mean that bilingual children are less bound by the words, focused more on the core meaning?

An illustration comes from Leopold's famous case study (1939-1949) of the German-English development of his daughter Hildegard. Hildegard accepted very early that a word itself and its meaning were loosely connected, there was no absolute or inevitable link between them. Words were just arbitrary labels given to an object or idea. The name was separate from the object or idea itself. Leopold found that his stories to Hildegard were not repeated word for word. Plenty of substitutions and adjustments were made to relay the central points of the story.

(pp. 70, 71)

In a further experiment, Ianco-Worrall (1972) asked the following types of question: 'Suppose you were making up names for things, could you call a cow "dog" or a dog "cow"?' Bilinguals mostly felt that names could be interchangeable. Monolinguals, in comparison, more often said that names for objects, such as cow and dog, could not be interchanged. For bilinguals, names and objects are separate. This seems to result from owning two languages, which give the bilingual child and adult awareness of the free, non-fixed relationship between objects and their labels.

(p. 71)

...

One of the strongest lines of recent research in bilingual psychology studies the apparent ability of bilinguals to reflect upon the nature and functions of language. Simply stated, it appears that bilinguals have a greater awareness of language. This concept is commonly called metalinguistic awareness.

Metalinguistic awareness is the ability to reflect upon and manipulate spoken and written language. Language is inspected and thought about as a system to understand and produce conversations, rather than simply used. Such language awareness may include reflection on the intended meaning, sensitivity to what is implied rather than stated, and an analytical attitude towards language.

Research indicates that bilinguals, accustomed to owning and processing two languages, are better at analyzing them (Bialystok, 1987, 1988). They seem more able to look inwardly on each language and accumulate knowledge about the language itself, better able to regulate, manage and control their language processing.

One important possible outcome of the bilingual's greater metalinguistic awareness at an early age is earlier reading acquisition. Because bilinguals daily process two languages, they may acquire reading readiness skills faster. When this occurs, earlier reading may also relate to higher levels of academic achievement in various areas of the curriculum.

Not all bilinguals will have such metalinguistic awareness advantages. A study by Galambos and Hakuta (1988) found that such awareness is most developed when both languages are proficient at reasonably high levels. The effect of bilingualism on the processing of errors in Spanish sentences was found to vary depending on the level of bilingualism. The more advanced a child was in development of both languages, the better the performance on the test items.

(pp. 71, 72)

Baker, Colin (2000) The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals: An Introduction for Professionals. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Language and Speech Therapy in a Bilingual Context

From Colin Baker's The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals

A bilingual situation adds an extra dimension to the work of language and speech therapists, since a proportion of therapy may be carried out through different languages, concurrently where feasible.

When helping young children, many language and speech therapists work with them in their first language or, in the case of children with no speech at all, in the language their parents speak to them (their potential first language). When children make progress in their first language, the work does not usually have to be repeated when the child encounters a second language at school. The language skills acquired in the first language, such as labeling objects or using verbs, transfer to the second.

Learning a second language does not pose any particular problems for a child with general learning disabilities, although the level achieved in both languages may be lower than that of peers. In fact, the stimulus of acquiring another language, with alternate labels for objects and concepts, seems to help the child progress in both languages. The careful grading of language by the teacher, the repetition of key phrases and vocabulary, the use of visual cues and stimuli, the emphasis on learning through activities, all enable the child to make good progress in the second language alongside the peer group.

The instance where there may be difficulty is when a child has a specific language related disorder. A child who has problems 'tuning into' or processing language may find it difficult to cope with a class where the curriculum is delivered through the medium of a second language. It may not be easy to 'pick up' the second language and the child may be shut out of classroom interaction. A preferable option for such a child might be to attend a school where the curriculum is delivered mainly through the medium of the first language, and the second language is presented only in set periods.

One situation which language and speech therapists encounter is minority language parents who speak the majority language to their children. Sometimes when a child has learning difficulties, parents believe two languages are an extra burden and adopt the useful majority language. This can also happen when the child has not particular problem, but the parents decide from the child's birth to promote the majority language to 'get a good start in life'. The result is that the child is excluded from the interaction between parents and other family and community members.

Since the parents are not native majority language speakers, sometimes the model they offer their child is impoverished and deficient. Thus the child grows up, not advantaged but deprived. A child with learning disabilities is further disadvantaged. It seems preferable, wherever possible, for parents to speak their own language to their child. If acquisition of that first language presents problems, language and speech therapy can help. The second language can be built upon the strong foundations of the first.

Many modern language and speech therapists now refute the suggestion that bilingualism is a burden, even for individuals with congenital or acquired language disabilities. Bilingualism is simply a ;dimension in life, to be taken into account when working with people with different kinds of language disabilities. The ability to speak two languages is a privilege and resource that should be denied to no one.

(pp. 128, 129).

SOURCE:
Baker, Colin (2000) The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals: An Introduction for Professionals. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

REF:
Baca, L.M. and Cervantes, H.T. (1998) The Bilingual Special Education Interface (3rd edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bilingualism: Language Delay and Language Disorder

From Colin Baker's The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals

Language delay illustrates the erroneous link between bilingualism and developmental problems. Language delay occurs when a child is very late in learning to talk or lags well behind peers in language development. Estimates of language delay in young children vary from 5% to 20% of the child population. Such varying estimates reflect the range in delays from brief and hardly noticeable to more severe.

Language delay may have a variety of causes: partial hearing, deafness, autism, severe subnormality, cerebral palsy, cleft palate and other physical problems or psychological disturbance. In approximately half to two-thirds of all cases, the precise reason remains unknown. Medically normal children with no hearing loss, normal IQ and memory, who are not socially deprived or emotionally disturbed, may be delayed in starting to speak, slow in development or may have problems expressing themselves. In such cases, specialist professional help is needed, from speech therapists, clinical and educational psychologists, counselors and/or doctors.

Parents of bilingual children with such problems should not attribute them to bilingualism. Sometimes, well-meaning professionals suggest this diagnosis, when definite causes remain unknown. Raising children bilingually is sometimes believed to cause language delay, though evidence does not support this position. Raising children bilingually neither increases nor reduces the chance of language disorder or delay.

A key consideration for parents is whether removal of one language will improve, worsen, or have no effect upon language development. Since the cause of the problem may be unknown, intuition and guesswork are often substituted for 'science.' Research in this area is still in its infancy. Confronted with the suggestion of concentrating on one language only, if there is a major diagnosed language delay, parents, teachers and professionals run the risk of accenting the perceived importance of the majority language. In the United States, the advice is often to supply a steady diet of English, the language of school and employment. All too frequently, the majority language reduces the home, minority language, with painful outcomes for the child.

When someone has loved, cared for and played with the child in one language, and then suddenly only uses another language, the child's emotional well being may be hurt. The language used to express love and caring disappears. Simultaneously, and by association, the child may feel the love and care also are not as before. Such a language change is often drastic, with negative after-effects and consequences.

Even when parents and professionals accept that bilingualism does not cause a child's problem, some see monolingualism as a remedy. they reason that removing the 'extra demands' of bilingualism will lighten the child's burden. if the child has a language delay problem, simplifying demands may solve or reduce the problem. The apparent complexity of a bilingual life is relieved. Is this right?

There are many cases where changing from bilingualism to monolingualism will have no effect on the problem. If the child is slow to speak, without an obvious cause, or seems low in self-esteem, dropping one language is unlikely to help. On the contrary, the sudden change in family life may exacerbate the problem, since the stability of language life is disrupted. In most cases, this move is inappropriate. However, it is dangerous to make this advice absolute and unequivocal.

To advise only 'stick with bilingualism' is simplistic and unwise. With language delay, for example, there will be a few family situations where maximal experience in one language is preferable. Where one language is much more secure and better developed than the other, it may be sensible to concentrate on developing the stronger language. If the child only hears one language from one parent, and that parent is often absent, a short-term concentration on the stronger language may help in a language delay period.

This does not mean losing the chance of bilingualism forever. If, or when, language delay disappears, the other language can be reintroduced. If a child with emotional problems detests using a particular language, the family may sensibly decide to accede to the child's preference. Again, once problems have been resolved, the language may be reintroduced, as long as it is immediately associated with pleasurable experiences.

Any temporary move from bilingualism to monolingualism should not be judged the only solution needed. Such a focus is naive and dangerous. Emotional problems may require other rearrangements in the family's pattern of relationships, as discussed with a counselor or psychologist. Language delay may require advice from a speech therapist, including about family language interaction. Temporary monolingualism should only be seen as one component in a package of attempted solutions. However, it is important to reiterate that retaining a bilingual approach, in the great majority of cases will not exacerbate the problem of language delay.

Language Disorder

According to Li Wei, Miller and Dodd (1997), around 5% of all children experience some form of language disorder, including: late speech development, very slow development in language competence, speaking less often and less accurately than normal, inability to produce certain sounds or remember new words, and never achieving the same language competence as peers. Bilingual children are neither more nor less likely to show problems. However, when bilinguals are inaccurate in speaking a second language (as they may be on the learning curve) or when sounds are added from one language to the other (often playful and creative), these are not language disorders.

If the child requires professional assessment and help from a psychologist or speech therapist, this professional must understand the child's bilingual background and the nature of childhood bilingualism. Assessment of the child must be completed in both or all languages, using tests normed on bilinguals, and avoiding comparison with monolinguals in phonology, vocabulary, syntax and fluency.

(pp.126-128)

SOURCE:
Baker, Colin (2000) The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals: An Introduction for Professionals. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

REF:
Wei, L., Miller, N. and Dodd, B. (1997) Distinguishing communicative difference from language disorder in bilingual children. Bilingual Family Newsletter 14(1),3-4. (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.)

Bilingualism and Learning Difficulties

From Colin Baker's The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals

The previous theme disputed the link between bilingualism and under-achievement in school. The failure of some language minority children to achieve satisfactorily was argued to be potentially the result of a complex equation of factors, none of which was directly linked to bilingualism. These include an educational system that devalues the child's home language and culture and does not build on existing abilities in the home language. The social and economic difficulties that many indigenous and immigrant minorities face were shown to be another possible cause of academic under-achievement.

Another unfair assumption made by some people is that bilingualism causes specific learning disabilities. This topic argues that this assumption is usually false. Bilingualism is rarely a cause of learning difficulties.

Bilingual children are often wrongly assessed as having learning difficulties, because basic mistakes are made in assessment and categorization. A child is often tested in the weaker, second language, inaccurately measuring both language and general cognitive development. In Britain and the United States, immigrant students have often been tested through the medium of English, on English proficiency, while their level of competence in Spanish, Bengali, Cantonese or other first language is ignored. This is discussed more fully in 'Assessment and Bilingual Children' (see p. 130)

The result is that, instead of being seen as developing bilinguals, children with a good command of a first language, in the process of acquiring a second, they may be classed as 'of limited English proficiency' (LEP in the United States) or even as having general learning difficulties. Below average test scores in the second language are wrongly define as a 'deficit' or 'disability' that can be remedied by some form of special education.

While learning difficulties occasionally occur within bilingual children, there are a variety of possible causes, almost none of them aligned to bilingualism. Six examples of causes follow, which are similar to the causes of general under-achievement in school.

* Poverty and material deprivation, child neglect and abuse, helplessness and desperation in the home, extended family and community may create personality, attitudinal and learning conditions that render assessment of learning difficulties more probable. Sometimes such assessment will reflect prejudice, misjudgments and misperceptions about the child's home experiences. The learning problem may thus lie in a mismatch between the culture, attitudes, educational expectations and values of the home and school. Different beliefs, culture, knowledge and cognitive approaches may be devalued, with the child labeled as inferior in intelligence, academically incompetent and low in potential.

* The problem may lie in the standard of education, poor teaching methods, non-motivating, even hostile classroom environment, a dearth of suitable teaching materials.

* The school may inhibit or obstruct learning progress. If a child is taught in a second language, while the home language is ignored, then failure and perceived learning difficulties may result. Some Spanish-speaking children in the United States are placed in English-only classrooms on school entry. They must sink or swim in English. Those who sink may be deemed to have a deficiency. When assessed in their weaker second language, rather than their home language, they are labeled as needing special or remedial education. The monolingual school system itself may then be responsible for specific learning difficulties as well as general underachievement. A school that promotes bilingualism would be more likely to ensure learning success for the same child.

* A lack of self-confidence, low self-esteem, fear of failure and high anxiety in the student may lead to apparent learning difficulties.

* Classroom interactions among children cause some failures. When a group of children encourage each other to play around, share a low motivation to succeed, or where there is bullying, hostility and social division rather than cohesion within a classroom, the learning ethos may hinder individual development.

* Failure is also caused by the mismatch between the gradient of learning expected and individual ability. Some children learn to read more slowly than others, still learning well, but after a longer period of time. Less able children can learn two languages within the (unknowable) limits of their ability. Other children experience specific learning difficulties, such as dyslexia, neurological dysfunction, short term memory problems, poor physical coordination, or problems in attention span and motivation. None of these specific learning disabilities are caused by bilingualism. At the same time, bilingual children will not escape being included in this group; bilingual families are no less likely to be affected than other families.

This list, neither exhaustive nor comprehensive, how that there are many possible roots for a child's learning difficulties, while bilingualism has almost nothing to do with any of them, either as a secondary or primary cause. Bilingualism is unlikely to cause learning difficulties.

Almost the only case where bilingualism is associated with learning difficulty is when a bilingual child enters the classroom with neither language sufficiently developed to cope with the higher order language skills demanded by the curriculum. The child has simple conversational skills in two languages, but cannot keep up in either, thus implicating language in learning difficulties. In this case, bilingualism is not the true problem. The problem is insufficient language practice in the home, nursery school and outside world. it is not bilingual deprivation but deprivation in any language. This is a great rarity, but the only genuine connection, though indirect, of bilingualism with learning difficulties.

(pp. 124,125)

Ability Effects

Is it the case that less able children will experience bilingual cognitive advantages, or would such children be better off as monolinguals? Rueda's (1983) research suggests a 'cognitive advantages' link may be found in less able children. Using children of well below average IQ (51-69 IQ points), Rueda compared bilinguals and monolinguals on three tests: a Meaning and Reference Task which examines the stability and meaning of words (the death of a 'flump', an imaginary animal), the Arbitrariness of Language Task (could we call a 'cat' a 'dog'?), and the Non-Physical Nature of Words Task (does the word 'bird' have feathers?). On each task, the bilinguals tended to score significantly higher. Although Rueda found no difference on a Piagetian conservation test, this research indicates that the cognitive advantages linked to bilingualism may not be specific to higher ability children.

If children have below average ability, there is evidence to suggest that they can still acquire two languages within their unknown limits. While well meaning friends, teachers and speech therapists sometimes suggest that only one language should be developed, Canadian research indicates cognitive advantages in bilingualism for these less able students. Just as their development occurs at a slow pace in mathematics, literacy and science, so also with the development of languages. The size of vocabulary and accuracy of grammar may lag behind the average bilingual child. Nevertheless, such children, acquiring two languages early, will usually be able to communicate in both, often as well as they would in one alone.

(p. 126)

SOURCE:
Baker, Colin (2000) The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals: An Introduction for Professionals. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

REFS:

Baca, L.M. and Cervantes, H.T. (1998) The Bilingual Special Education Interface (3rd edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Harry, B. (1992) Cultural Diversity, Families and the Special Education System: Communication and Empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.

Explanations of Under-Achievement in Bilinguals

From Colin Baker's The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals

What may explain seeming under-achievement by language minority children when and where this occurs? When first, second or third generation immigrant children appear to fail in the classroom, where is blame popularly placed? When guest works' children, indigenous minorities and distinct ethnic groups are shown to leave school earlier, achieve less in examinations or receive lower grades, what is the cause?

The blame may be attributed to the child's bilingualism, often popularly seen as causing cognitive confusion. The bilingual brain is depicted as two engines working at half throttle, while the monolingual's single, well-tuned engine runs at full throttle. Such an explanation is usually incorrect. Where two languages are well developed, then bilingualism is more likely to bring advantages than disadvantages. Only when a child's two languages are both underdeveloped can 'blame' be attributed to bilingualism. Even then, the blame should be on the societal circumstances that occasionally create underdeveloped languages.

Where under-achievement exists, the reason assigned may be underexposure to the majority language. Failure or below average performance, in the United States and the United Kingdom, is typically attributed to insufficiently developed English language skills for the curriculum. Those who use a minority language at home are sometimes perceived to struggle at school, due to a lack of competence in the dominant tongue. Thus submersion and transitional forms of bilingual education attempt to ensure a fast conversion to the majority language.

However, such a speedy conversion may do more harm than good; it denies the child's home language skills, even denies the child's identity and self-respect. Instead of using existing skills, the 'sink or swim' approach attempts to replace them. The level of English in the curriculum may be too advanced; consequently, the child under-achieves. Further English lessons become the remedy, but not the best solution.

Providing instruction through the medium of the minority language, in two-way, developmental maintenance or heritage language programs may combat under-achievement. When children are allowed to operate in the heritage language in the curriculum, evidence indicates successful results, including fluency in the majority language (Baker, 1996; Cummins, 2000). Thus underexposure to the majority language, though popular, is an incorrect explanation of under-achievement. It fails to note the advantages of instruction in the minority language. It inappropriately seeks an answer in increased majority language instruction, rather than increased minority language education.

Moreover, when bilingual children under-achieve, there may be a mismatch between home and school, based not only on language differences but also dissimilarities in culture, values and beliefs (Delgado-Gaitan & Trueba, 1991). As an extreme, this reflects an assimilationist, imperialist and oppressive majority viewpoint. The child and family are expected to adjust to the school system, rather than expecting a pluralist system to incorporate variety. From such an assimilationist viewpoint, the solution lies in the home adjusting to mainstream language and culture to prepare the child for school. In the past, some educational psychologists and speech therapists advised language minority parents to raise their children in the majority, school language.

Alternatively, where practicable, the school system should be flexible enough to incorporate the home language and culture. A home-school mismatch can be positive addressed by 'strong forms' of bilingual education for minorities. By two-way, developmental maintenance and heritage language programs, by a multicultural classroom approach with respect for the child's value systems, culture and religious beliefs, the inclusion of parents in running the school and in partnership in their child's education, the mismatch can become a merger.

(pp. 120,121)

Section on socioeconomic factors omitted due to my current focus on international school environments.

This raises another issue. Under-achievement is not simply related to one or several causes. The equation of under-achievement is complex, involving a number of factors, which interact in complicated ways. Umbrella labels, such as 'socioeconomic status' must be broken down into more definable predictors of under-achievement, such as the parents' attitude about education. Home factors interact with school factors and provide an enormous number of different routes to varying degrees of school success. The recipes of success and failure are many, with varies, interacting ingredients. However, socioeconomic and sociocultural features are important in most equations of under-achievement.

Part of the equation is the type of school the child atttends. This topic has highlighted the different outcomes in 'strong' forms of bilingual education, compared with 'weak'. The same child will learn more in programs using the heritage language for instruction than in programs which replace the home language as soon as possible. Therefore, under-achievement in a language minority child or group calls for scrutiny of the whole school. A system that suppresses the home language is likely to explain part of individual and ethnic group under-achievement. It tends to deny the language and cognitive achievements of children, their identity and self-esteem.

'Type of school' is a broad heading, under which a range of quality can exist, from poor to superior. Where under-achievement occurs, it is too simple to blame the type of school, rather than digging deeper and locating more specific causes. Baker (1996), Cummins (2000) and Hornberger (1991) have listed attributes that must be examined in assessing the quality of any educational system serving language minority children. Such factors include the supply, ethnic origins and bilingualism of teachers, classroom balance of minority and majority students, use and sequencing of languages across the curriculum over different grades, and reward systems for enriching the minority language and culture.

Under-achievement may be due to real learning difficulties. It is important to make a distinction. Too often, bilingual children are labeled with learning difficulties, while the causes of problems may be less in the child and more in the school or educational system. A subtractive, assimilative system typically creates negative attitudes and low motivation. In the 'sink or swim' approach, 'sinking' reflects an unsympathetic system and insensitive teaching, rather than individual learning problems. Apart from system and school generated problems, there will be children who are bilingual and have genuine learning difficulties (Cummins, 1984). Distinguishing between the real and the apparent, the system-generated and the remediable problems of the individual highlights alternatives. When under-achievement exists, do we blame the victim, blame the teacher and the school, or blame the system? When assessment tests and examinations show relatively low performance of language minority individuals and groups, will prejudices be confirmed or can we use such assessment to reveal deficiencies in the architecture of the school system and curriculum design? Under-achievement tends to be blamed on the child and the language minority group, while the explanation often lies in factors outside the individual.

A particular case of under-achievement is when students drop-out of schools. Stephen Krashen (1999) provides evidence to show that bilingual education is not the cause of dropping-out in United States schools, but it may be the cure. Latino students do have higher dropout rates (e.g. 30% of Latino students are classified as drop-outs compared to 8.6% of non-Latino whites and 12.1% of non-Latino blacks). Krashen's (1999) review of evidence suggest that those who had experienced bilingual education were significantly less likely to drop-out.

There are factors (other than bilingual education) related to dropping-out such as socio-economic class, recency of immigration, family environment, and the presence of print at home. It is estimated that 40% of Latino children are more likely to have parents who did not complete High School. When these factors are controlled statistically, the drop-out rate among Latinos is the same (or virtually the same) as for other groups. Since 'strong' forms of bilingual schooling tend to produce higher standards of academic English and performance across the curriculum, then such schools become part of the cure for dropping-out.

(pp.122,123)

SOURCE:
Baker, Colin (2000) The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals: An Introduction for Professionals. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

REFS:
Baca, L.M. and Cervantes, H.T. (1998) The Bilingual Special Education Interface (3rd edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Harry, B. (1992) Cultural Diversity, Families and the Special Education System: Communication and Empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.

Krashen, S.D. (1999) Condemned Without a Trial: Bogus Arguments Against Bilingual Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.