The present debate

When used in public and independent schools bilingual education is accepted as educationally sound (Brisk, 1998: 1). However, in the past 50 years bilingual education for learners with EAL in the state school system has been very controversial, especially as much research completed prior to the 1950s saw bilingualism as a problem to be removed for academic and cultural reasons (Corson, 1998). Since this date, research studies, such as the one carried out by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO, 1953) have reported that the home language (sometimes also called the mother tongue), is the best medium for instruction and for literacy development and should be used for as long as feasible. This, they reported, is because the home language facilitates subject learning and literacy development and is the means through which ‘a child absorbs the cultural environment’ (UNESCO, 1953: 47) as well as enabling understanding between school and home. It also refuted the following objections:

■ native language use impedes national unity;

■ native language use prevents learners acquiring the second language;

■ some languages do not have a grammar. (Brisk, 1998)

However, there are others that oppose bilingual education, favouring models that focus on English language development (Brisk, 1998) such as ESL (English as a Second Language). These critics maintain that to be able to access the curriculum, learners with EAL need to have a good grasp of English before they can access all subject teaching in English. Brisk says: ‘Proponents of bilingual education believe that students learn faster when they are educated through their native languages while studying English. Opponents maintain that language minorities need English as a precondition to becoming educated’ (1998: 2).

Discussion

Discuss the points raised above. Which type of model do you think your educational setting follows? Why do you think this is?

Another issue that requires investigation at this stage is the effect that main stream press coverage and politics have on teachers’ perception of bilingual learners. The following statement was given by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, in 2002:

Speaking English enables parents to converse with their children in English, as well as in their historic mother tongue, at home and to participate in wider modern culture. It helps overcome the schizophrenia, which bedevils generational relationships. In as many as 30 per cent of Asian British households, English is not spoken at home. (Daily Post (Liverpool), 17 September 2002)

Discussion

Do you think this statement is supportive of recent legislation and guidance?

As Connors (2003) says, this public discussion seemed to have been informed by a model of second language development that sees the child’s first language as a deficit factor, causing a problem for both the child, the family and society. Charity groups and supporters of asylum seekers condemn this and other statements about bilingual children, particularly asylum seekers. ‘However, very few of these questioned the assumption that the children’s home language was a handicap, a source of problems all round’ (ibid.: 2).

Discussion

Do you think this type of media and political discussion can have ideological effects on what educators think and hence on their assumptions about how bilingual learners should be taught? Give your reasons.