accelerated schooling for all students:

Accelerated Schooling for All Students:research findings on education in

multil ingual communitiesWayne P.Thomas and Virginia P Col l ier

George Moson University, Foirfox,Virginio. USA

s we educators prepare our students for the 2l st century, weare aware of many changes occurring globally. Populationmobil i ty continues throughout the world at an al l-t irne high

in human history, bringing extensive cross-cultural contact amongdiverse language and cultural groups. Predictions focus on anincreasingly interconnected world, with global travel and instantinternational communications available to more and rnore people.Businesses and professions seek employees f luent in more than onelanguage, to part icrpate in the international ntarketplace as well as toserve growing ethnolinguistic minorit ies l iving within each corn-n'runity. Students who graduate with monocultural perspectives andknowing only one language wil l not be prepared to contribute totheir societies (Cummins in Ovando and Coll ier. 1998).

This chapter examines schooling in diverse contexts in the UnitedStates, with the goal of sharing insights for schools in the unitedKingdom and E,urope. During this century, US schools have notovercome enormous equity gaps between middle-class native-English-speaking students and those students who enter the schoolswith no proficiency in English. Ethnolinguistic minorit ies of manydifferent language backgrounds are among the lowest achievers inAmerican schools. It has been common practice to forbid thesestudents to speak their native language in school and to teach themin separate classes while they are learning English, or to keep themin mainstream classes with just a liftle support from E,nglish as a

t5

I6 . INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION IN EUROPEAN CLASSROOMS

Second Language (ESL) specialists. These practices, we have foun{

have not worked well.

Our research has examined many different types of school programs

provided for students in all regions of the US. Over the past fifteen

years, we have conducted research in twenty three school districts in

fifteen states, with over one million student records collected from

1982 to the present (Col l ier , 1989, 1992 Col l ier andThomas, 1989;

Thomas and Coll ier, l99Ja, 1999b). We now have clear long-term

student achieventent data that unravels some of the mysteries sur-

rounding the schooling of these students. Our data analyses fron-t

ntany school distr icts in diverse regions clearly show that enrichment

bil ingual programs that accelerate student learning are among the

most prornising rnodels for schooling. Furthermore, these same

programs are dynamic models for school reform for all students.

When native-E,trgl ish speakers in LJS schools have the opportunity to

reccive schooling through two languages, where they have same-age

peers to serve as peer teachers, they not only develop a deeper pro-

f iciency in the ncw language but also accelerate their own academic

growth. We will devote most of this chapter to the factors that

promote acceleration of school achievement for students who begtn

their school ing wi th no prof ic iency in the language of the school . In

the end the reader wil l see that these factors also apply to al l

students, majority and n-rinority.

How Long?

Since 1985, we have been asking the research question'How long?'

as we analyze many data sets from different school districts. This

question addresses the length of time required for students being

schooled in their second language to become academically com*petitive with native speakers of the school language. Jim Cummins(1981) conducted the f irst published study addressing this question,

analyzing the school records of 1,210 immigrants who arrived in

Canada at age 6 or younger and at that age were first exposed to theEnglish language. Cummins found that when following thesestudents across the school years, with data broken down by age onarrival and lensth of residence in Canada. it took at least five to

ACCELERATING SCHOOLING FOR ALL STUDENTS . I7

seven years, on the average, for them to approach grade-level norms

on school tests that measure cognitive-academic language develop-ment in English. However, many US school administrators areextremely sceptical that five to seven years are needed for the typicalimnrigrant student to become proficient in acadenric English.Furthermore, many policy makers sti l l insist that there must be away to speed up the process. stating that schools have just not done

a good job and can do better. We becarne intrigued with tl-re acerbicdebates on this issue and decided that more research needed to be'conducted on the'How long?'quest ion. More than a decade later .we have sonre clearer expansions for school adniinistrators andpol icy nrakcrs.

Many measures for academic success are used in US schools thatcould potential ly answcr the question 'how long'/ ' . Teacher-nradc

tests exanrine ongoing progress. result ing in a grade fbr each sub3ect

or catcgory of assessnrent at t l ie end of each grading period. Thesegrades are an important diagnostic measure, but t l te starrdards var1,

fronr teacher to teacher and cannot be generalized beyond the class-

room level. Sorne school distr icts use locally developed tests to

measure students' growth in each subject arca, fol lowing distr ict-

wide objectives or competencies for each grade level established by

curricular teams. These local tests help individual schools contparetheir perforrnance to other schools in the same school distr ict. but

they cannot be generahzed beyond the district level. Many states

Irave developed standardized tests, based on statewide objectives orcompetencies that are required for al l sfudents in each state, but

these cannot be generalized beyond the state level. Nornr-referenced

tests based on general curricular standards across the US for eachgrade level and normed on students nationwide provide the mostgeneralisable and the highest difficulty measure of student achieve-ment. These tests are usually commercially developed and many

states set standards that include testing students on one of these

norm-referenced tests, commonly at Grades 4, 6. 8 and 1 1. ( ln theAmerican constitution, education is a duty reserved to the individualstates, not the national government, so there are no official nationalcurricular standards or national testing requirements.) In our


research, we use the national norm-referenced tests as the ultimatemeasure, a very challenging standard. These measure typical perfor-mance of native-English speakers across the country in all subjectareas. Students'performance on this type of measure in Grade l l isstrongly correlated with their success in continuing with universitysfudies when they graduate from high school.

Not all students choose to continue their education at universitylevel, but we take the position that all students should have theopportunity if they so desire. E,qual educational opportunity is abasic r ight in the United States, guaranteed by federal legislation andcourt decisions, but not al l groups in the US have achieved educa-tional success. When students of one ethnolinguistic backgroundconsistently score low throughout their schooling on the measures ofeducational achievement, then schools have under-served thesestudents. Something is wrong.

Our operational definition of equal educational opporlunity for USstudents with no prior background in English is this: The test scoredistr ibutions of English language learners (known also as English asan Addit ional Language or EAL pupils in the United Kingdom) andnative-English speakers, init ial ly quite different at the beginning oftheir school years, should be equivulent by the end of their schoolyears as measured by on-grade-level tests of al l school subjectsadrninistered in English. This does not mean that every individualstudent must be on grade level. There wil l always be some highscorers and some low scorers among both the English languagelearners and the native-English speakers. But when these two groupsof students are compared" the averages and variation of their testscore distributions should be equivalent by the end of their schoolyears. our 'how long?' question examines the length of tirne re-quired for these distributions to become equivalent and what in-fluences students' success in reaching this point.

Confirming Cummins' (1981) research, we have also found thatreaching parity with native-English speakers takes a long time. Butpoliticians and laypersons assume that the only thing E,nglish lan-guage learners have to do is to become fluent in Enelish. which is

ACCELERATING SCHOOTING FOR ALL STUDENTS . I9

commonly thought to take about one or two years. Linguists andeducators strongiy disagree, pointing out that primary languageacquisition is a process that takes from birth until young adulthoodto acquire the full adult system of oral and written language acrossmany contexts of language use and that second language acquisitionis an equally complex developmental process that takes t inte.

However, the main point that policy makers need to understand isthat for the school-age child proficiency in the language of the

.school is only one of many, many processes occurring sirnul-taneously. With every ycar of school, each student is experiencingintense academic, cogni t ive, l ingurst ic , socia l . emot ional . andphysical dcvelopment. This development is measured by the schooltests. which examine cognit ive growth as well as vocabulary andconcept knowledge in E,nglish, applying this knowledge throughproblem-solvrng across the curriculum nrathenratics, scietice.social studies, language afts, and l i terature. Languagc proficiencytests do not adcquately measure language use in a school sett ing. Butthe school tests do, because they also measure age-appropriate lan-guage use at school, including the expanded knowledge acquiredwith each year of schooling. For example, with each year of school.to stay at the 5Oth percentile, typical students must make ten monthsof achievement gain on t l ie tests given across the curriculunr.

E,nglish language learners (ESL/EAL) are not generally given thenorm-referenced school tests in English during the first one to twoyears after their arrival, since these tests will underestimate what thestudents actually know but cannot yet demonstrate in English. Butafter around two to three years of schooling in the US, these tests aregiven to E,AL learners as well as all other students. We have foundthat, as a group, ESL learners typically score around the iOth to l lthpercentile when tested on grade level and in E,nglish. That is a 40-percenti le gap (equivalent to about 1.3 standard deviations) withtypical native-English speakers nationwide, whose average score isat the 5Oth percentile. To close that large 40-percentile gap, ESLlearners must accomplish more than one year's achievement for anumber of years in a row. More specifically, they must make fifteen

20 . INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION IN EUROPEAN CLASSROOMS

months of progress for each ten months of progress that the native-

E,nglish speaker is making each year of school, and they must do this

fbr six consecutive years to eventually reach the 5Oth percentile - a

dramatic accomplishment! This is true for any 'at risk' group of

students who initially score low on a norm-referenced test.

The vital thing for policy makers to recognrze is that the native-

English speaking students are not sitting around waiting for E,AL

pupils to catch up with them. While ESL pupils are acquiring

Englisli, the native-English speakers are forging aheacl, making

enormous progress with each school year in al l school subjects as

well as E,nglish lernguage development and demonstrating their cog-

r-r i t ive, l inguistic, academic, social and emotional growth in the

school tests. So rve must help ESL learners not only to acquirc the

Errglish lauguage but also to uc:celerale their ur:utJemic' grow'th

beyond that of typical native-E,nglish speakers. We have found that

it is inrpossible to expect groups of even the most gifted bi l ingual

studcnts to accomplish this incredible f-eat in less than four years (the

shortest t inrc we have seen). Most ESL learners attending quality

cnrichment schooling programs that accelerate their growth take

five to seven years the same time period as Cummins found

School Program Inf luence on Long-term StudentAchievement

Sadly, wc have fbund that typical school programs across the UShave not succeeded in closing the achievement gap f iom the 1Oth tothe 50th percenti le. The large majority of ESL learners in the US aregraduating around the 1Oth percenti le and signif icant numbers areleaving school without completing a high school degree. Teachersoften say, 'But my students are making great progress,' and they are.When a student first tests at the 10th percentile and completesschool at the l0th percentile it means that the student has rnadetremendous growth, keeping up with the pace of the typical native-English speaker; making ten months of academic progress with eachten-month year of school, but not closing the gap at all. To becomecompetit ive with typical native-English speakers who are achievingat the 50th oercentile. fbrmer ESL learners must achieve sub-

ACCELERATING SCHOOLING FOR ALL STUDENTS . 2 I

.stantiullt' nlore than ten months of academic progres.s .for at least

fiv'e tosir consecutive years. A student graduating at the lOth per-centile has little chance to enter university study and his/her educa-tional opportunit ies are severely l imited beyond high school.

Another pattern that we see in our data analyses is that ESL learnersinitially make dramatic progress. Whatever school program theyattend: in tlie shorl term they appear to be closing the achievementgap, moving up to the 20th and then the 30th percenti le in the f irst

' two to three years. But then as they leave their special program andenter the mainstream and as the cognit ive and acadcmic demands ofthc curriculutn become grcater at micldle and high school (Grades 7-l2) . their perccnt i le scores go back down to those of among thelowest achievers

See Figure l. Lines 4-5 and 6 for a visual i l lustration of this pattern.This f igure ltrescnts student acl i ieverrent in norntal curve equiva-lents (NCEs), which represent a convcrsion f l-ont percenti le ranks(w'ith dif lerent amounts of achievement in each unit) to equal-interval scores. The 23rd-24th NCE is the lOth- l l th percent i le.which are the beginning and end-points of L ine 6, represent ing thosestudents who rcceived one to two years of E,SL pLrl l-out rvhen theyfirst entered [JS schools in kindergarten. The three program typesrepresented by Lines 4, 5, and 6, are amoltg the most conlnolt in theUS and the least successful in the long tenn. In tliese programs.students receive one to three years of assistance from special ists (bi-l ingual and/or E,SL teachers) and the remainder of their school yearsare spcnt in t l re rnainst ream.

But there are exceptions to this low achievement pattern. as can beseen in Figure 1. Some ESL learners are able to close the achieve-ment gap by making f i f teen months' progress with each year ofschool, reaching the 50tli percentile in about six years and maintarr-r-ing that high level of achievement or achieving sti l l higher (as can beseen in Lines I and 2). These students will have ntany educationalopportunities when they graduate from high school. Enrichmentbilingual programs produce these exciting student outcomes. Theseprograms are still uncommon in the US but are growing in number,


Figtrre l. (jpg file1

I 'ATTERNS OF K-I2 ENGLTSIT I ,EAITNEIIS'LONG-TERVI ACHItrVEMENT IN l ' {CEs

Ol! S"I 'ANDAIIDIZED ' I 'EST'S IN ENGI, ISH RI i i \DlN(J

C]O]I IPARED AC]ROSS SIX PROGRAM MODEI,S

( i icsLr l ts aggregatcd t l '0nt a scr ics 0l ' . t r -8-ycar longitr"rdinal stLrt i ics

1 l 'onr u e l l - in tp lcn icn tcd , l l ta t l l fe p rogra lns in t l ve sc l t t lg l d is t r i r t : ), ( ' r rP l r ig .h t \ \ ; l r r n r ' I ' . 1 ' l tonurs & \1 i rg in i l r [ ) . ( 'o l l i c r , ]9 t )7

l ) r og r rm l : l ' * r r - v r a r dc i , c l op r t t t en ta l b i l i r l gua l cduca t i o r t ( l l t . , )

I , r og r i l n t 3 :Onc -nay r l e vc lopn rcn ta l I l [ ; , i r r c l ud i t r g l rS I " t aug l r t l h roL rg l t r cac l c t t l t e c ( ) l l t e l l l

I ) r og ran r l . ' l ' n i ns i t i onu l

l l [ , i ne l ud ing I iS l , t uL rgh t t l t r o t rgh acac l c t t t i c e t ) r l t ! ' l ] [

I ' r og ran t "1 : ' l ' n rns i t i on r r l

l l l : , i ne l uc l i ng I rS I - , bL r l h t aL rgh t t r ad i l i on l l l v

[ ' rogram 5: I rSl - taught throLtgh acadcmic col t tent t ts ing currcnt approachcs

l ) rog ra rn 6 : l :SL pu l l ou l - t augh t t l ' ac l i t i ona l i v

F i n a l I ' r o g r a n t s :\ ( . ' l l r . l $ o , w n l

C I{A

( ) ( o l , ) r r g h l \ \ r - r n t l ' . ' l h o r n r r a n d V i r g i n r a l ' . ( . o l l i c r , l 9 { ) l

50

\( -+0t.

ACCELERATING SCHOOLING FOR ALL STUDENTS . 23

as educators work on school reforms and discover these models. Inenrichment bilingual programs, students receive the mainstreamcurriculum through both their primary language and English, withchallenging academic work that is cognit ively on grade level.Teachers use cooperative learning, thematic interdisciplinary units,hands-on rnaterials, and much work with video and microcomputers,as in atty mainstream class. The materials and books present a cross-cultural perspective, and lessons activate students' prior knowledgefor bridging to new knowledge. Enrichment bi l ingual classes forolder students include problem posing, knowledge gathering, reflec-t ive th inking, and col laborat ive decis ion rnaking.

Program Variations in the US

Of the distinguishirrg features influencing the dranratic differencesin former E,SL learners' long-term achievement, two f-actors standout as especial ly powerful. One is the way the progrant is set up andperceived by staff- is i t forremediation (ie to f ix what is viewed asa problent) or for enrichment ( ie to add to what the student alreadyknows)'7 The second factor is the use of the students' primarylanguage for instruction.

. From Remediotion to Enrichment

Pull-out or separate bi l ingual and ESL classes generally have astigma attached. because too often teachers focus on renlediationand water down the curriculum,, and the students know they are notbeing challenged with age-appropriate schoolwork. Init ial assess-ment of the new arrivals focuses on what's n-rissing and whenstudents have l i t t le or no English, they are sent to a special ist to be' f ixed. 'Even inclusion c lassrooms too of ten have the specia l is t (a b i -l ingual or ESL teacher or 'aide' sitt ing at the back of the roomtutoring students; whereas team teaching leads to more meaningfulintegration of students with varying proficiency iri the language ofinstruction. Remediation in separate classes or in the back of theroom most often results in lowered expectations and lower achieve-ment for students. Furlhermore, when ESL learners have no ongoinginteraction with native-English-speaking peers, they have little


opportunity for natural second language acquisition. Same-age peersare a crucial source of second language input. But they are bene-ficial only in settings that bring students together cooperatively andpermit interactive negotiation of meaning and sharing academictasks equally (Wong-Fil lmore, I99I ).

In contrast to remediatior-r, bi l ingual enrichment classes providequal i ty , chal lenging, on-grade- level school ing through two lan-

-quages in an integrated sett ing for al l students. The strengths thatESL learners bring to the classroom, including knowledge and l i feexperietrces f iom other cultural contexts, as well as native-speakerknowledge of another language, are used as resources fbr leanting,as essent ia l bui ld ing blocks. Af ter enr ichment b i l ingual c lasses areestablished, thcy are often perceived as classes for the gifted. Yetstudents of a l l levels of socioeconomic status and ethnol inguist icbackground and with varied levels of proficiency in thc languages ofinstruction are able to f lourish in these classes. E,very class memberis rvorking on acquiring a second language, so al l have an equallychal lenging task, inc luding the nat ive-Engl ish speakers who havcchosen to enrol l in the bi l ingual c lass.

. The Power of Using Students' Primory Language forlnstruction

The second nrost powerful and posit ive influencc on studentachievement is to increase the amount of instruction in the students'pr imary language. ESL pul l -out and ESL content a lone (L ines 5 and6 in Figure I ) are the two US programs with no primary languagesupport. Graduates of ESL content programs signif icantly increasetheir achievement over graduates of ESL pull-out, from the I I th tothe 22nd percentile. But by adding primary language support fbr twoto four years in a well-taught bi l ingual class, which always includesESL content, student achievement reaches a sisnif icantlv hisherlevel, the 32nd percenti le (Line 3 in Figure l).

Students in transit ional bi l ingual classes are closing the achievementgap wliile they attend the program, but at the point where they aremoved into all-English instruction, they continue 'to keep pace with


the native-English speaker (making ten months' progress in eachschool year) but no longer are closing the gap. Whereas studentsrvho are placed in enrichment bilingual classes that focus on teach-ing the mainstream curriculum through two languages for at least sixor seven years until the end of elementary school, are able to closethe achievement gap in their second language and maintain theirhigh performance (50th percentile or even higher) throughout theremaining years of their schooling.

We have found that groups of students who enter the progranr inkindergarten reach the 5Oth percenti le olt the school tests in theirsecond language sometime between the 4th and 7th grade.

Engl ish-Only Programs

FigLrre 2 provides an overview of characterist ics of the [JS schoolprograms represented in Figure l. In addit ion to the six prograttr

types, we have included in Figure 2 a theoretical de scription of Pro-posit ion 227 as specif ied in the referendum, approved by voters in

the state of Catifornia in June 1998.

In actual implementation, California schools have varied greatly inthcir rcsponse to the Proposit ion, some fol lowing the guidelines

closely, and others choosing to implement many variations, includ-ing bilingual schooling. We have no data on student outcomes fbr the

program plan proposed by Proposition 22J. but we would predict

that its average long-term student achievement will be even lowerthan for ESL pull-out, since it has still fewer of the support charac-

teristics of other program models. The programs presented here havegreatly varying names from one school system to another. but we

have chosen the most common terms used across the US.

. ESL pull-out

As can be seen in Figure 2, moving from left to right across thefigure, the programs range from little or no supporl to strong supportfor students. ESL pull-out is generally carried out by an ESL re-source teacher who receives ESL learners throughout the day forhalf. one or two hours, after which they return to their mainstream


Figtrre: (jpgJile)

S u m m a ry of Cha racter ist ics a n d Ef l 'ect ivenessof Contmon Programs lo r Eng l ish Lnnguage Learners

RIi IVIEDIAI, t.t \ t.a I Ct | ){ Eiit'

: \ i l n l t \ v As rre l l in tp lor lcntcd , \s wcl I r r lo lenrcntct l

I i r r g u r s t i r I ( , r l \ \ ' , r r n l

l i m p l t r s r s ! t - n l l i r h[ . ] = t t r r t t a r t !

r r r l l r r r i - ' t

l a n g u : r g t .

t . : t . , , r l f , . f , I

S o c i o c u l t u r a l i

\ o n t l , r l ( l c i \ o t t t r \ 0 i l r r 't lj rIi

\ l r 0 n g( I f ( l

\ l r o n g

( l ' ( ll . n rph rs i s I

i;.',-,,,.'-L 1lI ' rogr r r r r l . rng t l r I

i l i l i : , , , , "

l::,'JJ.', " f'';-

\ l l r , l t l , r t l r I S l l , r t I t ( r l l \ l t , , r I t ( r i l l 5 u \ t r [ l ( d l \ u \ t N i n r ( iL l r t . t r s | | i t c r r r s J - l - l \ ! . i t r \ / l ' . r ' . L r I r

a;, - I,,;,,,, M ( x l r r r t r ,;;;-Ti;;;;;,

f .;l';1';' - tI [ . r p , , s r r r r t r , I r r r I t . l \ r ' l \ , , \ r ' s I \ c r

[ . n g l i s h S l r t r k c r s l l r l l - ( l i r \ , \ l l J r r

' , ,*, , --- l t*

I . , , , , ,rr r,l ' l rt ra

l n r t r u t l i o r r i( o s l

L f \ l r . r I

l f \ l t . t j n r ) ( l r r ) l r

l ( . r r l r t f , i r . l r l t a ' , , i \ 1 . ! | t l

S i l r r l l - l ( ) -

r n ( ' ( l c r i r l I

1 : i ' e ( l i L

r l ! t . l ( 1 l i I I r r r 1 , r i r ! i [ r L ! i ] t u l |

I t r r c c n t o l '

. \ c l r i t ' r t r r t c r r l

( i r p \ \ i t l r

\ a t i v c - 1 . . r r g l i s h

S p c a k c r s ( i l o s r d

l r l f n t l o l

S c h o o l i n [ ( l ' r s r l i

r ) [ d i l l ' t [ ! l ] l l (

r f s r n r ( h l

l ' r f r c n t l \ , { b o u t( ) n c - l ( ) u r l h

. \ l ) r ) t r 1

o r e - t h i r d

A l ) ( l u l

{ ) i l c - h a l l '

l i r r r l a v c l r g e

\ ( . l t r c u r u t

r ( l i l r \ . i l ( n t t o

i . l 0 J I r r l i r ) n t l

i ) ! r f f r l l r l ( l ' ! r c f n u l e I P r r ! ! i l t r l (I

\Yhilc in thercprograrnS r*

$luLlcnl$ rccciyo;

'filI with

'l'radifion:rl'l'erehlirg

TBE withClrr:cutTerchlng

( . ogn i t i ve

l in rphns is

.\c lr lc nr ic

L n r p has is

t i l l u l l \ c h o 0 ls u i ) l e c t s )

I ) e r c l r i p s

l u l l

l . l , 1 . 2

A c ! U c m l (

[ ' r o l i c r t l c I

l u l ll . l ' t _ 2. \ c ! 0 e m l f

l ) r o l l c r t r r c r

O n l ) S o c i i l lE n g l i s h{ ( ) n l \ i l ) l . : l )

Ac[ ( lc t t t cI, l nglish{ r J n l } i n I l )

l ) rve l0pst'a r( it Il , l + t -2A f a d e t n r fI ' ro f i c ienc l


class, Some schools have implemented ESL inclusion, in which the

ESL resource teacher comes to the mainstream class and tutors the

students for a time, helping to make the mainstream lessons more

comprehensible. We include this as part of ESL pull-out, because the

students only get this support for a limited period, and long-tenr-t

achievement outcomes are similar. ESL pull-out is expensive be-

cause it requires extra ESL resource teachers (Crawford. 1997).

. l t is less effective because students miss important subjects while

they attend ESL class; art iculation with the nrairrstrcanr tcachers

who scnd their students to ESL is diff icult to nraintain; and students

have no access to primary language schooling to keep up with grade-

level academic work while learning E,nglish (Ovando and Coll ier,

1998).

. ESL content

ESL content programs, also labelled sheltered instruction, provide

ntuch ntorc support than ESL pull-out, because the ESL teacher is

focused not just on teaching the English language but on teaching

the entire curriculum. At middle and high school levels, ESL content

staff team together to teach their strengths in curricular subjects.

Sometimes a mainstream teacher teams with an ESL teacher when

the ESL teacher is not cert i f ied in a part icular subject. A well imple-

mented ESL content program, taught during the first two to three

years after the immigrants'arrival (with students gradually moving

into the mainstream in Year 3). can raise fonner ESL learners'

achievement to the 22nd national percenti le by the end of schooling.

wliich is much better than the l lth percentile for graduates of ESL

pul l -out .

This level of achievement (22' percentile) may be enough to allow

admission to a community college, which can eventually lead to

university study.


Remedial Bi l ingual Educat ion. Ti"onsitional bilinguol education

This program provides half a day of ESL content teaching and halfa day of instruction in the students' primary language in a self-con-tained classroom where students are all speakers of the sameprimary language (eg. Spanish). Sfudents are gradually introducedto more instruction in English with each year unti l they are main-streamed, typically after two to four years. This program model hasbeen supported at state and f.ederal levels, with extra funding pro-vided fbr school distr icts that choose to apply. Some states such asTexas, I l l inois, Massachusetts and New york passed legislation inthe 1970s making this program mandatory for students who are potyet proficient in English when they enter school. In these statesschools catr also choose to create enrichment bi l ingual models. en-hancing the transit ional model i f they wish.

Enr ichment Bi l ingual Programs. Two-woy developmentol bilingual educotionTlie ternr ' two-way'ref-ers

to bi l ingual classes where two languagegroups arc being schooled through each other's languages (eg.English a'd Spanish). This integrated model is a powerful one fbrschool refbrn-r. We' attd other researchers have founcl that academicachievernent is very high fbr al l groups of part icipants, compared togroups of similar background who receive schooling only throughEnglish. This holds true for students of middle-class status and ofIow socioeconomic status, as well as African-American students andstudents of ethnolinguistic minority background (christ ian, 1991:coll ier, 1992; Lindholm ancl Aclan, lggl; Thomas and coll ier.1997 a).

Some inrportant implernentation characteristrcs of two-way bi-l ingual school i 'g inc lude: a minimum of s ix years of b i l ingual in-struction, focus on the core academic curriculum rather than awatered down version, quality language arts instruction in both lan-guages, separation of the two languages for instruction, and use ofthe non-English (or minority) language for at least 50 percent of the


rnstructional t ime and as much as 90 percent in the early grades.Also, a successful two-way program requires a positive bilingualenvironment that has full support of school administrators: abalanced ratio of students who speak each language (eg. 50:50 or60:40, preferably not to go below 70:30, to have peer models foreach language), promotion of posit ive interdependence among peersand between teachers and students; high-quality instructional per-sonnel; and active parent-school partnerships. (Lindholm, 1990;Thomas and Col l ier . 1997b)

. One-woy develoPmental bilingual educotion

The demographics of a given school community rnflucncc the feasi-bi l i ty of two-way programs. When there are insufTicient nativc-E,nglish speakers enrolled, a one-way developmental bi l ingualprogram is an option, in which one language group is schooledthrough two languages. This model shares al l the features of twct-way-bil ingual cducation and can be used in any school with largenunrbers of students of one primary language heritage. This enrich-ment model teaches the core academic curriculurn through thestudents'primary language and the majority societal language i l i arrintel lectually challenging way, using students' l inguistic and culturalexperiences as a resource for interdiscipl inary, discovery leanring.The characterist ics above for ' two-way' also apply to 'one-way'.

(For more sources on the specrfics of implementation of al l of theprograms discussed above, see Genesee, 1 999: Ovando and Coll ier,1998; Thomas and Col l ier , 1 991b, 1999b.)

Current Approaches to Teaching

In our research we have found that some teachers use very tradi-tional teaching methods while others have adopted teaching innova-tions of the last ten to fifteen years. We have found both types ofteachers in almost al l programs, so this factor, also influential, is a'within-program' variation, rather than something that distinguishesone program from another.


In Figures I and 2 we provided one example for graduates of tran-

sitional bilingual classrooms. After attending a traditionally taughttransitional bilingual class, student achievement outcomes, at the24th percentile, were very similar to those for graduates of ESLcontent programs, at the 22nd percentile. Primary language suppoftdid not boost students'performance signif icantly in a tradit ionallytaught bilingual class, whereas graduates of transitional bilingualclasses taught with current approaches were at the 32nd percentileby the end of high school. This is a very signif icant difference.

We define traditional teaching as classes that are more textbook-driven and very teacher-controlled allowing sfudents few oppor-tunities to interact with each other. In contrast, classes using what wecall 'current approaches' focus on interactive, discovery, hands-onlearning. Teachers in these classes often use cooperative learning.thematic interdiscipl inary lessons, l i teracy developrnent across thecurriculurr, process writ ing, performance and portfol io assessment,microcomputers, crit ical thinking, learning strategies,, and globalperspectives infuse the curriculum. In the two enrichment models -'one-way' and'two-way' developmental bi l ingual education - mostof the teachers enrbrace current approaches, and ongoing staffdevelopment helps teachers to implement discovery learning acrossthe curriculum.

Why Enrichment Programs Work Well

To accelerate students' academic growth, ethnolinguistic minorit iesneed a school context that provides the same basic condit ions thatthe majority group experiences. This includes attention to al l the on-going developmental processes that occur naturally - nonstop - forany child: cognitive, academic, and linguistic development in a sup-portive sociocultural context. We have created a model (Figure 3)which illustrates the importance of equal attention to these fourdimensions of learning for students who come from a bilingualcommunity.

ACCELERATING SCHOOLING FOR ALL STUDENTS . 3 I

Socia l

and

Cul lura l

Processes

' l 'hc Prisrn Modcl

f"i,qurt, -1. I lltg lilt')

Language Acquisition f or School

32. INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION IN EUROPEAN CLASSROOMS

The four major components are interdependent and complex. If one

is developed to the neglect of another, this may be detrimental to a

student's overall growth.

For adult immigrants, second language is an appropriate first focus,

because they are already cognit ively and l inguistical ly mature (i tr-

cluding t l iose not tormally schooled). Thus, adults who learn a

second language in a favourable sociocultural environment face a

completely clifl-erent endeavour than do children, who must nrake

cognit ive and academic progress while they are learning a second

language. Cousequently, programs that emphasize learning the

seconcl liittguage as the main goal are appropriate fbr adults but can-

not r-neet chilcJren's needs. Adult policy makers must remember this

when making program decisions for children.

Wlien students are given the opportunity to develop academically

and coguit ively through both their primary language and a secontl

language. this accelerates their learning. But when students are

denied use of their primary language in school, they lose several

years of cognit ive and academic growth while fbcusing on acquirir ig

the second languaige, and we fincl that very few can make up the lost

t ime (so clrop out of school or graduate at the lOth percenti le).

Sociocr"rl tural support is equally important. ln schools with such

support, ethnolingr"rist ic minorit ies are respected and valued lbr thc

rich l i t-e expericnccs in other cultural contexts that they bring to the

classroom. The school is a safe, secure environment for learning.

Majority language speakers treat minority language students with

respect, and there is less discrimination, prejudice, and open hos-

tility. Minority students' primary language is affirmed respected

valued and used for cognit ive and academic development. Famil ies

develop partnerships wi th the school and celebrate ongoing

bil ingualibicultural learning in the community, for al l ages.

For long-terrn success, ethnolinguistic minority students ntust re-

ceive the same benefits of a supportive learning environment that

society automatically affords the majority language group.

Examining the Change Process

School policy makers have many decisions to consider in the processof school reform. Ethnolinguistic minorit ies are rapidly becoming amajority in many communities around the world and schooling allstudents well leads to increased productivity and cooperative rela-t iot ls among all groups. It is in our own best interests to enrich ourschool programs so as to provide accelerated learning for al l .

The fol lowing should be considered in school refomr decisions:

I.The potentiol quality of progrom type

This refers to the power of a particular program's feartures to rn-f luence student achievement. Sonre of the prograr-ns cl iscussed abovcare ' featurc-r ich ' , wi th enhanced potent ia l to afTcct student achierc-lnettt, while others are ' feature-poor', with l i t t le or no theoreticalreason to bel ieve that their use wi l l help ethnol inguist ic nr inor i tystuclents to closc the achievenient gap.

2.The realized quality of progrom type

This is the dcgree of ful l and effective irnplementation of a progranlin terms of adminrstrative support; teacher ski l ls and training todeliver thc ful l instructional effect of the program; and the degree towhich program instal lat ion, processes and outcontes are uronitoredand forntatively evaluatcd.

3. The breodth of progrom focusThis refers to instructional focus on the Prism Model dinrensions ofcognit ive. academic and l inguistic developn-rerrt to native-speakerlevels in the second language as well as in students' primary lan-guage, in a supportive sociocultural school environment, as con-trasted with a narrow and restrictive instructional focus. such as ' justlearning enough of the majority language to get by.'

4.The quality of the school's instructi onal environment

This refers to the degree to which the school becomes an additivelanguage-learning environment rather than a subtractive environ-


ment, including parental engagement and support of the instruc-

tional program. In an additive bilingual environment, students

acquire their second language without any loss of their primary lan-

guage. Students who continue to develop cognitively in their pri-

mary language and develop age-appropriate proficiency in both first

and second languages can out-score monolinguals on school tests

(Baker and Jones, 1998).

5. The quolity of ovailoble instructionol time

This is the degree to which instructional time is used effectively so

that students receive maximally comprehensible instruction for an

instructionally optimurn time period, in classrooms where ethno-

linguistic groups are not isolated, but where all students interact to-

gether and where instruction is driven by students' cognitive,

academic and l inguistic developmental needs.

Linguists klow that more time in the second language is uot neces-

sarily better; the human brain can cope with only a few hours of

intensive work in the new language in any one day. Thus primary

language schooling for parl of the day keeps students on grade level

cognit ively and i icadenrically and accelerates students' learning.

A successful program in the US allows average students who were

ESL learners to out-gaiu average native-English speakers for four to

seven consecutive years, so that the initial large achievement gap is

gradually closed over t ime in al l subjects and in English. This pro:

gram must be 'feature-rich,' must be well implemented and de-

l ivered must fbcus on al l four of the Prism Model dimensions, must

create an additive instructional environment in the neighborhoodschool, and must offer instruction that is fully comprehensible andappropriate for meeting students' developmental needs.

Such programs are rare in the real world. Most schools fall short onsome or all of the above factors. However, it is vital that we reahzethat educators can create effective change by using these factors todesign and implement programs. We only need the resources and thewill to use them appropriately.


When we do this, ethnolinguistic minorit ies' school achievementwil l match or exceed majority students' achievenrent over t ipre.achieving true equality of educational opporlunity. As the number ofunder-served students continues to r ise in most countries. ournational productivity and welfare in the 2l st century demands thatwe move away from polemics and toward action-oriented policiesand accelerated education strategies that wil l dramatically improvethe quality of education for al l students.

Authors 'note: For more in format ion and rcsearch f ind ings on enr ichnrcnt b i l ingualcducat ion and other progranr nrodcls in b i l rngual / l lsL cducat ion in thc Uni tcdStatcs. v is i t thc Nat ional Clear inghousc for B i l ingual I lducat ic ' rn ' .s r ,vcbs i te .lv'wv'.nche.gv'u.edul and the national Ccntcr for Rescar-ch on Education.Divcrsity and Excellcnce'.s website: fu,v,w.t.ret l". , ir , , .er1al. pro.lcct L l of thcCREDE rcscarch, conducted by Drs. Thomas and C--ol l icr. adclrcsscs c' l ist in-guishing curricular featurcs of progranrs and thc Iong-tcrrn acaclcnric achi(]\ , 'c-n lcnt o1 ' I ing l ish language lcarncrs who at tcndcd thesc progranrs. F ind ingsf j 'om th is ncw study wi l l be rcpor ted in 2000-2001 on the CRLTDE wcbsr te.

Bibliography

Achcbc. c . ( I965) 'Engl ish and the Afr ican wr i ter ' , Tran,c i t ion 4 ( lg) : 21 30Argyrakr, F. el al (1994)'Education and Drspersion', Educational Contmtrnifr,rssuc

28 . A rhcns

August, D' and Hakuta, K. (eds) ( i l997) Intprot ' ing.rchooling./ i tr. languoge-ntinr-trrtychiltlren; A re.search agenda. washington, DC: National Academy press.

Bakcr' C and Joncs, S.P (1998) Enc'.t 'clopedia of bi l inguali .snt nrtr{ hi l in,quctl e4ucn-t ion. Clcvcdon. IJK: Mul t i l ingual Mat ters

[ ]ar to lorny, [ . . (1994) Bcyoncl the mcthods fe t ish: Toward a hunranrz ing pedagogl , .Ifary'ard Educ'ation Reviev,, 64, ll3_lg4

Batcs, I ' ( 1995) The contpctcncc nrovcnrent : conccptual is ing rcccnt rcsc2r .ch.Stttdie,s in,\c' ient 'e Educctt ion,25 ( I 995), pp.3l6g

Bcrnstc in , I l . (1996) Pedagogt , , ,s) ,n thol ic 'contro l ont j i r l t ,n t i t r . . L .o ldop.Franci s

Taylor ancl

Board of Studics, Victoria (1996) I iSL companion to t l tc En,ql i ,sh ClF Victorra.Roard of Studies

Bourdreu, P. ( 199l) Languctge and .g.vmbolic pov)et..Bourne, . l (1989) Moving in to the ntu in. ; t rcnnt ; l , t :A

Windsor , NFER-Nelson

Cali l 'ornia Statc Dcpaftntent of Education (1985) Ccr.se stutl ie,s in bi l ingual eclucct-t ion: Fir,s' t Yeur Reporl. Federal Grant #G00g303723

California Dcpartnlent of E,ducation. (1996) kaching reuding; A brt lancetl, c6nr-prehen.sive approach to leuching reacling in prekinclergarten through sr.qtlt'three. Sacranrento: cal i fornia Dcpartment of ' Education

canrpbcll , w.J. and McMenrnran, M.M. (19g5) Bridging the language gup; ideal.sand realitie.r to learning English a.s a .second language (ESL). canberra.Contmonwealth School s Contnti ssron

Cashion. M. and Eagan, R. (1990) Spontaneous rcading and wr i t ing in Engl ish b i ,studcnts in total Frcnch immersror.r: Summary of f inal report. Engli .shQuttrterl t , , 22(1), 30-44

Chanrot, A. U. and O'Malley, M. (1994) The CALLA Handbook; lntplententing rheCognit ive Acudemtc Languuge Learning Approach, Reading. MA: Addison_' We slcy

Chana. U.' Edwards, V and Walker. S. (1997) Call igrapher or keyboard opcratorlMult i l ingual wordprocesstng in the primary school. Mult iculturalTeuchinp l6(1 \ : 39 -42

l .ondon, Pol i ty Prcss

ltrovi.r iorr lr tr hi I i nguu I ptrpt Ls

t4 l


Chana, U. , Edwards, V and Walker , S. (199S) Hidden resources: mul t i l rngual word-proccss lng in thc pr imary school . Rt tce, Ethnic i t t ,und Educ:ut ion I ( l ) : 49-61.

Christian, D. (1994) T)\'o-w'o.r' bilinguul eclucution; students /ectrning through tw,ctlunguttges (Educational Practice Rcport No. l2). Washington, DC: Clcntcr forApplied Linguist ics and National Center for Cultural Diversity and SecondLanguagc Lcernrng

Chr is t ian, D. . Montone. C.L. , L indholm, K.J . , and Carranza, l . (1( )91) Prut f ' i le .s in/x 'o-h ' . / . ) ' in t tnersron educ 'ut ron. Washington, DC: Centcr lbr Appl icd t - in-gr-r ist ics ancl Dclta Systents

Clrnc.T. (1998) I -carn ing to read fbr nreaning. Nat ional Associat ion fbr LanguageDcvelopnrcnt in thc Curr icu lum (NALDIC) Conf-crencc paper . Unpubl ished.

C'o l l ic r , VP. (1987) Age and ratc of acquis i t ion o1 'seconcl language fbr academicprr rposcs. TLSOL Quurtar l_ t , ,2 l , 6 I 7 -641

Clo l l ic r . VP (1992) A synthcs is of s tud ics cxamin ing long- tcrm IangLragc minol r t l ,s t t rdent data ot t acac lcnr ic achicvcnrcnt . B i l ingual Re. ;eurc 'h Journul , l 6( l -2) ,t81-2 t2

Col l ic r , VP. ( 1999) How long ' / A synthesis of rcscarch on acadenr ic achrcvcmcnt rna sccond languagc. TESOL Qurt r ter l .y , ,23, 509-531

C'o l l ic r , VP. at td Thonras, WP. (1989) How quick ly can inrmigrants bcconrcl r ro l ' ic icr r t in school I i r tg l ish ' . ) . /ournul o f Educut i r . , r tu l l .s ' .s r re.s of Lur tgt tugt ,Ll i tr o r i t t ' . \ t u d t ' n t.s' . _5, 26-3 8

Coll icr, VP. attcl Thorttas, W. P School Ei}-cctivcness fbr Larrgr-rage MinoritySttrclents. ln col lectcd papcrs o1'the lnvitut ionul Confiren(,e on Tcut'hing unrlLaurning I ingl i .s'h u.\ ' (rn Addit ionul Lunguuge, Lonclon, 27-2g Apri l 1995.Lonclon: SC'AA

('otrttrr issicrn lbr R.acinl trquali ty (19u6) The ( 'ult lerr lule Reprtrt L.ondon: C'REC'crrsot r , D (1997) T l rc learn i t tg and usc o l - acacicmic I lng l ish words. Lunguuge

Lt,urning, 4l . 6l I -71 8

Crarv lbrc l . J . (1997) Bcst cv idcncc: Re scarch fbundat ions of thc Bi l ingual Educat ionAct . Washington. DC-- : Nat ional Cleannghousc for B i l ingual Educat ionIw'u, u,.ncbc. gwu.cclu]

Cunln l ins, J . ( l98 la) The ro le of pr imary language developrnent rn promot i lgeducational succe ss for language minority students. In Clal i fbmia StatcDepartnrcnt of Eclucation (Ed.), Schooling untl lunguctge minorifi., .s,tudent.s; ,tltheoretic' t t / f i 'untework Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.Calrfornia State University, Los Angeles

Cunrt l l lns ' J . ( l98 lb) Age on arr iva l and in"rmigrant sccond language learn ing i1Canada. A reassessment. Applied Lingui.st ics, 2, 132-149

Cumnr ins, J . (1991a) The development of b i l ingual prof ic iency f rom homc toschool : A longi tud inal s tudy of Por tuguese-speaking ch i ldren. Journul o fEduca t i on ,173 , 85 -98

Cummins, J. (1991b) Interdependence of f irst- and second-language proficiency inbilingual children. In E. Bialystok (F.d.) Language processing in bilingualchildren (pp 70-89). cambridge: cambridge University press

BIBLIOGRAPHY . I43

Cummrns. J. (1992) Language Proficiency, Bil ingualism, ancl Acadcnric Achieve-n-icnt. In Richard-Amato, PA. and Snow, M.A. (cds) The i l , tult i l insuolc' ias.s-room. New York: Longman

Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating identitie,s; Eclucationjbr entpoyverntent in a tliy,et.se.rocieh.,. Los Ange lcs: cal i fornra Association for Bil ingual Education

Cunrniins' J. and Corson, D. (Eds.). (1998) Bil ingual etlucctt ictn. Dordrecht. TheNctherlands. Kluwer Academic publishers

cummins, J . , Har lcy, B. , Swain, M. , and Al len, p . (1990) Socia l anc l inc lv idLra lfactors in thc dcvelopmcnt of bi l ingual proficiency. In B. Harley, p. Al lcn. J.Cumnrins. and M. Swain (Eds.) The developntent of-secontl langtutge pro-l ic ' icnc'.t ' . (pp I I 9- I 33). ciambridge: canrbridgc University prcss

c.unrmins. J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K.. Handscombc, .1., Grecn, D. and Tran. c.( 1984) L lnguis t ic rn tcrdcpcndcncc among Japancse in tmigrant s tudcnts. In C .Rivcra (L;'cl.) Contntunicaliv'c c'omtrtelenc:e oppro(rche,.s to longuuge profit.tt,tttt,u.\. \e.\.rntent: Re.search and npplic,atktr? (pp 60-gl). clcvcdon, Avon: Mult i-l ingual Mattcrs

Curriculum Corporation (1994) ESL,scoles. Carlton, Victoria, C-Lrrr icLrlunr Corpura-t i on

Davics, A. ( I 99 | ) 7.hc l \ , lul i t ' t ' Speuker in Appliet l LingLri.st i t ' . ; . l rcl inburgh Unir,crsrtvPrcss

Davies, A. , Grove, E, . and wi lkes, M. (1997) Rcview of l i tc raturc on acqui r ingl i tc racy in a sccond language. In pMcKay, A. Davics, B. Dcvl in , .1 . Clayton. R.Olivcr and S. Zammit (Principal Rcsearchcrs) The hi l ingual interfac'e prote(-trepor t (pp. l7-74) . Clanbcrra, Austra l ia , Depar tmcnt of ' E,mployntcnt .Education, Training and Youth Alfairs

Davisot l , C. (1995) Lcarn ing language, lcarn ing content : t rcnds in ESL cLrr r icu lunrplanning atld asscssnrent in Austral ia. ln Int ' i tut ionul C'onfL,r '( .n(,c o1 Tcur-hin.qnnd Leurning Engli.sh us Addit ionul Lunguuge (pp.70-99) London, SchoolCurr icu lum and Assessment Author i ty

Depaftment for Education and Employment (1995) Ket' Stuge.r I ctnd 2 of theNct t i o n a I Curricu I um: HMSO

Dcpartnrcnt fbr Education and E,mployment ( 1998) The lvotiortal Literar-r, Stretest,.fru ntev,orkjbr teoc hi ng. London DfEE

Delpit, L. (1988) The si lenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educati lg otherpeopie 's chrldren. Harvard Educational Rev,iew,5g, 2g0-29g

Delp i t ' L . (1997. Fal l ) . Ebonrcs and cu l tura l ly rcsponsive rnst ruct ion. Reth ink in.q5choo l s . 12 .1 .6 -7

Dornyet, Z. (1998) Motivation in second and foreign language lcarnrng. LonguugeT 1t euch tng . J l . pp I l 7 -135

Edelsky, C. (1991) I l t i th / i teruct 'and justice /br al l . Rethinking the socitt l inlanguage and education. London Falnter press

Edwards, V and Redfern, A. (1992) The worlcl in a classroom. Clevedon. Multi-lineual Matters


Edrvards. V and Walker, S. ( in press) Language and design in mult i l ingual

classrooms. In M. Martin-Jones and M. Saxena (eds) Bil inguul stt l tport in the

rrruin.streunt r ' lussroonr. Clevcdon: Mult i l ingual Matters.

Edrvards, V (1998) The power o/ Babel. teaching und learning in mult i l ingutl

t ' lussrctorrts. Stoke on Trcnt: Trenthan-r Books.

El le1, , WB (1991) . Acqui r ing l i teracy in a sccond language: The cf fbct o f book-

bascc l progranrs. Lunguuge Leurn ing, 4 l , 37 5-41l l

E l ley, WB. and Manghubai . F (1983)The i rnpact o f reading on sccond language

learning. Reuding Reseurt'h Quorterllt, 19, 53-61

Ell is, R. (1994) The.studt,of ' .set 'ond languuge acquisit ion. Oxford Oxford Unrrer-

sr ty Prcss

Fic ld ing, L .G. anc l Pearson, PD ( l9c)4) Reading comprchension: what works.

Etlucutiottul Leutlership, 5l (5), 62-68

First Steps (Lrnclatccl) Supporting linguistic und c'ulturul diversit.t' through liir.s't

SrcTr.s the t l ighgute Prut; iect.. http://www.hcincmann.com/fi t 'ststcps/rcs I I /htntl

I - i tzgcra lc l . . l (1995a) Lrngl ish-as-a-sccond- langLrage learncrs 'cogni t ivc rcadrng pro-

ccsscs. A rcvicri . , o1' rcscarch in thc Unitcd States. Rev' iev, of Edttc'ut i t . trtul

Rt,.; t ,u r.t , h, 6-5, I 45_ I 90

Fi tzgcra lcL .1 . (199-5b) I :ng l ish-as-a-secondlanguagc rcading inst rLrc t io t r in thc

Urr i tcc l Statcs: A rcsearch rev icw. Jot r rnu l o / 'Reut l ing Rehuvi r t r ,2T . | | 5- 152

Frarrgoudaki , A. and Dragonas, T. (1997) 'What is our Honre land ' l ' Ethnot 'a t t l t ' i . ; t t r

u t td ELl t r t 'ur ion. Athens, A lcxandrra

Frcdcr ickson, N.L. anc i Fr i th , U. (1998) Ic lent i ly ing dys lcx ia in b i l ingLra l ch i lc l rcn:

A phcrnological approach lvith lnncr Lonclon Sylhcti spcakcrs Dvs' l t ' r iu 1.

p l 19

["ostcr ' , P (199S)A c lassroonr perspcct ivc on thc ncgiot ia t ion o1-nrcaning. r lpp l t t 'dL i r t gu r . ; t i c s , l 9 ( I ) , pp l - 23

[ ]ostcr , S (1990) T l ra ( 'o t ru t tLut i t 'u t i t ' t ' ( 'onr l t t ' t t 'nca o lYoung ( 'h i ldrat t ' . Longn- ian

Gabirra. J.J. er ul. (1986) EIFE. Inf luenc'e of ' . fuc'tor.s on the leurning o.f Busqut' . .( jastc iz . Ccntra l Publ icat ions Scrv icc of the Basque Cout- r t ry

(jcrrcsce , fr (Ed.) ( 1999) Prcgrum ullt'rnutiy'e.; lbr linguisitic'ul11, tliv'erse .stutlertts(Educat ional Pract icc Rcpor t No. l ) . Washington, DC: Centcr lor Appl icd

Linguist ics and Center fbr Research on E,ducart ion, Diversity and Exccllcnce

[*'w' w'. credc. uc sc. edu]

Genesee, F. (1979) AcqLrisit ion of rcading ski l ls in immersion programs. ForeignLunguttge Artnul.s, 12, I l- l l

Gibbon, P. and Scott, S. (eds) ( i998) Shuring Pructic'e in Interc'ulturuL Edu,-tt t iort(scr ies) . In tcrcu l tura l Educat ion Par tnership UK

Gibbons, P. (1991) Leurning to Leurn in a Second Lunguage. Austral ia: PrimaryEngl ish Teaching Associat ion

Gil lborn, D. ancl Gipps, C. (1996) Rec'ent reseurch on the uchieventent.s oJ ethnicminctri t t , pupi Ls. London, HMSO

BIBLIOGRAPHY . I45

Gil lhanr. B' (ed) (1986) The I 'anguage ef School Sttbject,s. London: HeinemannEducat ional Books

Gonczi , A. ( 1994) Competency based assessments in the pro l 'ess ions in Austra l ra .A.s,ses.sment in Education, l( I ), pp Zl _44

Grcgory, E' (ed) (1991) one Chilct, Mani 'World,;; Earlt ,Learning it t Mult icultLu.tt lContntunitres. London: David Fulton

Cregory ' E ' and Wi l l rams, A. (199S) 'Honrc and school I i tc racy pract ices in r . , r .crEast London conln lun i t te s ' : paper prcsented at thc 3 ls t Annual Confercncc ofthc Brr t ish Associat ion of Appl ied L inguis t ics

HakLrta, K. ( 1986) Mirror of longuttge. New york: Basic uooksHal l iday, M. A. K. (1975) Leurn ing IJ .v , t . Meun. Londor . Ar . rordHan lc rs . . l . [ r . and R lanc . M (1982) 'Towards a soc ra l -psycho log i ca l rnodc l o f '

bi lrngual clcvcloprncnl ' , . lournol of [ .anguage crntl , \rtcirr l [ 'st7hology l: 29 49I l a r r i s . R . (1997) Ronran t i c B i l i ngL ra l i sn r : T in rc fo r a ( ' hangc ' l n l r ng l i sh as an

Addi t ional l -anguagc: Changing Pcrspcct ivcs, Nat ional Assocrat ion Ibr .Languagc Devclopentcnt In thc Clurr rcu lunr (NALDIC)

Hornbcrgcr , N. ( 1995) Creat ing Succcssfu l Lcarn ing f 'ontcr ts for - B i l rngpalL i tcracy in ( jarc ia , O. anc l Bakcr . Cl (cc ls) t 'o l i t ' t .ur rd Pr .ur , t i t ' t , i r t R i l i r tg t tu lf i t lLtc'trt ion; l* lc:nding the lbundutiott. ; . C]lcvcclon. Avon. Mulri l ingual Mattcrs

' loncs. I - . and Moorc, R. (1995)Appropr ia t ing conrpctcncc: the conrpctency nroyc-n rcn t , t hc Ncw R igh t and t l r c ' cu l t u rc changc 'p ro j cc t . B r i t i . sh , /p t s .n t t l s fI lductr| ion und Work, B(2), pp.78-92

' lorclan, R and Powcll, S. (199-5) Llncler,ttanding rtnd Teuclt i tr,g Clr i ldr.t ' t t t t .rt lr,4 u I i.s m'. London : Wi ley

Kanl io l . R. (1990) Sccond languagc acquis i t ion through inrnrcrs ion in daycarc., lotrrnnl o/ C'hi ld Languctge l l . l4l-70

Klcsnlcr. IJ. ( 1994) Assessntent and teachcr pcrccptions of ' IrSL stuclcnt achrg\,c-nrent. Engli.th Quarterlv, 26(3), S_7

Krashcn. S. (1982) Principle.t and practice in SecontlI-ondon; Pcrgamon Prcss

Krashen. s. ( 1993 ) The power of-reudinr. E'grcwood. cro:Kuhn. T.s. ( l 962170) The .ttructure of ' .scientif ic ret,olutiott.s.

Chicaso Press

La n gu trge A cq u i.r i t r o n'.

[ - i b ra r i cs Un l im t t cd

Chicago. Un ivcrsit.v of

Lce ' J-W and Schal ler t , D.L. (1997)The re lat ivc contr ibut ion o l ' l -2 languagc pr .o-f iciency and Ll reading abrl i ty toL2 rcading perfonlancc: A test of thc thrcs-hold hypothesis in an EFL context . TESOL euar ter l1 , ,3 l ,7 l3- l39

Lrghtbown, PM (1992) Cian they c lo r t themselves? A comprchension-bascd ESLcourse for young chi ldren. In R. courchene, J .J . Gl idden, J . St . John. and c.Therien (Eds.) Comprehension-bosecl second language teaching. Ottawa:University of Ottawa press

Lindholm, K.J. (1990) Brl ingual immersron education: Criteria for progranrdcvelopment . In A.M. padi l la , H.H. Fai rch i ld and c.M. va ladez (Eds.) ,Bilingttal education; lssues and strategies (pp.9l-105). London: SAGE


Lindholn'r, K.J. and Aclan, Z. (1991) Bil ingual Proficiency as a bridge to academicachievement: Results from bilingual/immersion programs. Journal o/' Educu-t i on .173 ,99 - l l 3

Lo Biarrco, J ( i998) ESL. . is i t migrant lunacy '? . . . is i t hrs tory ' / Aust ru l i t tnLunguage M atters, Apr/May/June, I -6-7

Mal l rerbc, E G (19 '16) The b i l inguul sc 'hool . Johannesberg: The Bi l ingual SchoolAssociat ion

McKay, P. (1998) The l i tcracy benchmarks and F.SL. Austrct l ian Counc' i l o/ TESOL.1s.soc'iotions Buckgrountl Puper No.2 [,iterac], ESL broudbuntling henc:h-nturking. Mclbourne

McKay, P. (co-ordinator) (1992) ESL development; lnnguttge and l i terucl, in.school.sltnt iecl, v'ol. l . East MelboLlrnc, Victoria, National Languages and LiteracyI rrst i tutc of ' Austral ia

McNarnara, T (1996) L'lt'usuring .sec'ond lunguuge lterfitrntuncc. l-oncion, LongrnanMeck, M. (1988) Hov'tert.; leuc'h whul reutler.s' leurn. Stroud: The Thimble PrcssNat ional Assctc izr t ion lbr l ,anguage Devclopn.rcnt in the Curr icu lunr (1998 ) Prut -

v'i'sion in literuc'.v hours.fbr ltupils leurning Englislt us (tn Addilionul Lunguuge'.NALDIC

Nat ional ( lur t ' icu l t tn t C 'oLrnc i l (1991) Ci rc 'u lur number I l . l incu is t ic d i t ,er .s i t t , unt lthe N'utiortul Curri tulrrr ir. York: NCC

Natiorral Rcscarch C'ouncil . (1998) Praventing reutl ing t l i / / i t ,utt ie.s, in .\ ,oLtngt ' l t i ldret t . Washington, [ )C: Nat ional Acadenty pre ss

Nag) ' , wE. , Garc ia, G. l l . , Durgunoglu, A. , and Hancrn-Bhat t , B (1993) Spanish-I : r rg l is l l b i l ingt ra l s tudents ' usc o1-cognates in Engl ish rcading. Journul o fIlt' u tl t tt c IJ c lt u t' i otu', 25, 24 1 -251)

Nagy, wE, Hcnr . ran, I lA. , and Anderson, R u (1985) Learn ing words l l -onrcontcxt. Reuding Re.seun'h Quurtcrlv, 20(2): 233-253

Nal ion, P and Coady, . l (198s) vcrcabLr lary and reading. In R. Clarrcr anc l M.McC'ar thy (Lrds. ) I /o t 'ubulur i 'unt l lunguuge tauc 'h ing. (97- l l0) London: [ ,ong-lnan

Oll ' ice lbr Standarcls in I lducation (1991)The usses.sment of the lunguuge dev,elop-r t ter t t o . f b i l i r tguul pupi l .s . London, OFSTI lD

OfTice fbr Standards in Education (1998) In.specting Subjec,t.s 3-11 Guidunce furI ns p e c' t o r ' .s. l-ondon, OF STE D

Officc for Standarcls in Education (1999) Inspecting Subjects and A.spect.s l l-18Ertglish os utl.4dditionul Longuuge. London, OFSTED

ofrice fbr Standards in Ed,cation (1999a) sett ing in primort, Schro/.s. London,OFSTEI)

ogbu, J. (1978) Minorit-t ; edut'urion und cttste. Newyork: Academic prcss

Ovando, C.J. and Clol l ier, VP (1998) Bit ingual and ESL clas,srctoms; Teachin.q inntu l t icu l tu tu/ c ,ontexts (2nd ed.) . Boston: McGraw-HI l l

Pena-Hughes, E, . and Sol is , J . (1980) ABCs (unpubl ished reporr ) . McAl len, TX:McAl len Independent School Dis t r ic r

DrDLf\- , ' \ rnAr l1 | . l q l

Pcrera. K. (1984) Children's writ ing and reading; analt,sing clctssroctnt longuuge.Ox fo rd . Bas i l B lackwc l l

Postlcthwaite, T.N and Ross, K N ( 1992) E/fective schools in rectding; [ntplicationsfbr etluc'ational planner.s An e.xplctratort: .stud)). The Hague : Thc Inter.nationalAssocrat ion for the Evaluat ion of E,ducat ionar Achrcvenrcr l r

Ranrirez, J.D. (1992) E,xecutive summary. Bil ingual Resecu'c:h Joultct l , 16, l-62Rampton. B. (1990) 'Drsplacrng thc 'nat ivc spcaker ' : exper t ise. a f f i l ia t ion anc ' l

inhcritance ' . Engli , ;h Languuge Teoching,lournor, vor 44 no 2: g7-l0l

Rca-Dick inson. P and Ciarc lncr , S. ( 1998) 'The ro lcs of l i tc racy and oracvassessmcnt in b i l ingual in tet 'vcnt ion pro jects ' . papcl ' prcscntec l a t thc 3 ls tAnnual C onf 'crcncc of thc Br i t ish Associat ion of Appl icc l L ingLr is t ics

Rcid. I l . (1988) 'L ingurst ic n- r inor i t ies and languagc cc lLrcat ion thc Engl ishexpericncc' . .Journul o/ ' Mult i l ingual ond Mult iculturul Dt,t, t , lopntent 9. I alcl2 : l 8 l - l 9 l

Rcvcs. M. dc lu Luz. ( 1994) ( lha l lcnging vcncrablc assLrnrpt ions: L i tcracy inst l rc-t ion lbr l inguist ical ly di l ' f 'crcnt studcnts. I lun'urd Etlut,ut ionul Ret. i t , tr, . (t2.427 -446

Rosscl l ' C ' .H. and Bakcr , K ( l9 i )6) Thc c l l 'cc t ivcncss o1- b i l incLra l cc i l rcat r t ' rn .Re.seurch in the kuching o/ 'Engli^sh.30.7-j4

Sahgal ' A. and Agnthotr i , R K. ( l9S-5) 'syntax thc conrnron boncl . Acccptabi l i rvof 'syr r tact ic dcv ianccs in Ind ian Engl ish ' , Engl i .sh INor l t lv r . i t l t ,6 . l : I l l - l2r )

StIAA (1996) Teuching Engli: ;h u.\ ut1 nddit ionul lunguugt,; u f i t tntevrtrk lbr poligt ' .London. School Curr icu lunt and Assessntcn l Author i ty

Schmic l t . R w (1990) The ro lc of consc iousncss in scconcl langLragc leamrng.Appl ied [ , inguis t ic , r , I i (2) , pp I29- I58

Sicrra. J. artd Olazircgi, I . (1989) EIFE 2. Inf luenr:e of ' fuctor-.s on the learnin,q olBu' 'c1ue. Gastciz. Ccntral Publications Service ol- thc Basquc Country

Sicrra, J. and Olazircgi. I . (199l) EIFIT 3. Inf lut,nt 'e of ' for ' tot ' .s ' ott tht, leurrt i t t ,q ofBu.sque. Stutlv o/-the ntodels A, B und D in,s'econd ),eur Ba,ri t ' Gt:nera/ Edut'u-t ion. oastc iz : Ccntra l Publ icat ions Scrv icc of thc Basquc Country

Skehan' P (1998) A cognit i t 'e opproo(:h to lctngucrga leurning. Oxforcl oxfordUnivcrsity Press

Spolsky' B. (1989) Condit ions fbr .second lctngucrge leurnin,g. Oxfbrd. OxfbrdUnivcrs i ty Prcss

Swain, M (1995) Threc funct ions of output i r . r sccond langLragc lcarn ing. In G.Cook and B.Seidlhofcr (cds), Principle and proc't ice in opplied l ingui.st i t .s(pp. 125- 144). Oxford" Oxford University press

Swann ( 1985 ) Eclur:ation /br All , Departmcnt of Education ancl ScicnceTESOL (1991) EAL standards fbr Prc-K- 12 s tLrdents. A lcxandr ia . VA. TESOL IncThonras' WP and Coll ier, VP (1997a) Sc:hool ef.fecti t 'enes.;.fbr lunguuge ntinorit t

.students. Washrngton, DC: Natronal Clearinghousc fbr Bil ingual Educatiorr[www.ncbe.gwu.edu I


Thonras, WP and Coll ier, VP (l99lb) TWo languages are better than one. Educu-t ionol Leuder.ship, -5-5 (4), 23-26

Thonras, W.P and Clol l ier, VP. (1999a) Accclerated schooling for English languagclearners. Edut'nt ionul Leuder.ghtp, 56 (l l) , 16-49

Thonras, WP and Coll ier, VP (1999b) A natictnal stud1, oJ'school e.ffbc:t ivenes.s'forlanguage ntinorih, students' long-term academic achievement. Overt,iew ofresearch design. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversityand Excellcnce frvrvw. crede. ucsc.edu]

Trzarcl J., Schofield. W.N. and Hewison, J. (1982) Collaboratron bctween teachcrsand parents rn assistrng children's reading. Brit i ,sh Journul of 'Educctt ictnulP.;.t ,c'hologt' , 52, i- l5

Tosi, A. (1996) Lt,urning fi'om div,ersity,' lr,rft,ruge etluc'utir,tn ontJ intert:ulturulrt ' lut irt t t ,s rn lhe inner ci l .r ' . Brusscls, I luropean Clornmission and Eurocit ics

Tow'nsencl, U E.lt . (1970) Intntigr.unt Pupils in Englund: NFEI{

Travcrs, P (ed.) (1999) Enubling progress in u mult i l inguul c' luss'room. totturd.sint'ltr'siv'e etltrc'utir.tn. London Borough of Enfie ld" Languagc ancl CurnculunrAccess Scrv ice

Tr t tsct l t t , . l (1998) Not ic ing in sccond languagc acquis i t ion: a cr i t ica l rcvrew' ..Set'ond Lunguuge Reseurt,h, l4(2), pp. 103- I 35

Va ldcs , ( i ( 1997 ) DLra l - l anguage imnre rs ion p rog ra rns : r cuu t i ona ry no tccotrccrn ing thc cc lucat ion of language-minorr ty s tudcnts. Hurv,c t rd Et lu tut ionul1?o ' rew' , 67(3) , pp 39l -429

\ / c rhoc l cn . L . (1991)Acc l r i s i t i on o f ' b i l i t c racy . I n J .H . t {u l s t i j n and J .F - . Ma lc r(Eds.) Reuding i r t tvvo lu iguuge.s. Amsterdam: AILA. AILA Revicw, g,6 l -11

Vct 'hoc lcn. L . (199 '1) Translcr in b i l ingLra l dcvc lopmcnt : the l inguis t ic in tcr . -dcpcndcncc hypothcsis rcvisitecl . Lunguuge Leurning, 44, 3g l-4 I 5

wcl ls , ( i (1986) 7-he meuning mukers. por tsnrouth, NI I :HcincmannWiddou'son. [ { (1993) 'The owncrship o1 'Engl ish ' , l9c)3 Conf 'crcncc Reporr o l - thc

Intcrnatiorral Associatron of Teaching English as a Foreign Languagc\Vtrng Fil lnlore, L. (1997) Authentic' l i teruture in ESL instruc,t ictn Glenvicw. lL:

ScottForesnran

\ lbng Fi l lmore, L . (1991) Second language learn ing rn ch i ldren: A rnodel o f 'languagc learning in social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.) Lunguuge proc.e.s,.singin bi l inguul t 'hi ldren (pp.a9-69) Cambridgc. Cambridge Unrversity press

accelerated schooling for all students:

Documents