This article was downloaded by: [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek]On: 29 August 2013, At: 21:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ReviewPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

Bilingualism andLiteracies in PrimarySchool: Implications forprofessional developmentDEIRDRE MARTINPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: DEIRDRE MARTIN (1999) Bilingualism and Literacies inPrimary School: Implications for professional development, EducationalReview, 51:1, 67-79, DOI: 10.1080/00131919997687

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131919997687

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication arethe opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of orendorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions ofaccess and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

67Educational Review, Vol. 51, No. 1, 1999

Bilingualism and Literacies in PrimarySchool: implications for professionaldevelopment

DEIRDRE MARTIN, University of Birmingham

ABSTRACT The issues discussed in this paper concern the implications forprofessional development of teachers involved in the development of literacies withlinguistic minority learners. The paper presents the two main approaches to under-standing literacy and explores the dominant discourses which teachers are familiarwith about literacy and being bilingual in England. The paper argues that teachersneed to re¯ ect on the principles of teaching/learning, which build on the experiencesof learners, to make their practice effective and children’ s learning relevant.Examples of bilingual literacies’ pedagogy are discussed together with the implica-tions for including parents. At a time when the dominant discourse around literacydevelopment is becoming more prescriptive in England it is important to considerother pedagogies which include rather than exclude learners’ knowledge.

Introduction

This paper looks at some of the issues involved in developing literacies in bilinguallearners in primary school in England. The paper considers key issues which impingeon literacy development in pupils aged 5 to 11 years from linguistic minority andbilingual backgrounds in England. These issues are discussed through the centralchallenges facing continuing professional development (CPD) of teachers of pupilsdeveloping English as an Additional Language (EAL). Firstly, there is the challengeof the widely-held `de® cit’ hypothesis, where being or becoming bilingual isperceived as a problem and a disadvantage to learning, and language and literacydevelopment. This is linked to linguistic racism, epitomised in views demandinglanguage assimilation and expressed in terms of `If you live in England then youshould speak English’ . Secondly, there is the challenge of widening teachers’knowledge base, appreciating different frameworks for thinking about literacies,particularly that of the National Literacy Strategy, and understanding the relation-ships between spoken and written forms of language. Finally, there is the challengeof the implications for teaching linguistic minority pupils by developing a range ofprinciples, pedagogies and resources for teaching and developing literacies, not onlyin the classroom but also for working with parents from linguistic minority com-munities to build on the literacy practices developing at home.

This discussion is relevant and timely in England because of the reconceptualisa-tion of specialist language support for bilingual learners.

0013±1911/99/010067±13 Ó 1999 Educationa l Review

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

68 D. Martin

There are increasing moves to collocate EAL needs with literacy needs and specialeducational needs, exempli® ed in changes of funding and in expressions of alarm byspecialist language teachers (TES, 1998). It is important that professional develop-ment of teachers of literacy to linguistic minority learners, whether specialistlanguage support teachers or mainstream teachers, addresses the challenges in aninformed and critically evaluative manner.

Perceiving Bilingualism as a Problem

The `de® cit’ hypothesis has a negative perception of becoming and being bilingual,in several ways. It proposes that learners who speak little English, and are emergentbilinguals, from linguistic minority backgrounds, bring little or nothing to classroomlearning about literacy. These learners are perceived as substantially disadvantagednot only linguistically but also in terms of appropriate and relevant experiences, andschool and classroom are perceived as having to provide them. Further, the `de® cit’hypothesis may also extend to include the language and literacy environment of thehome, where parents are perceived as being `illiterate’ and not providing or not beingable to provide literacy experiences for their children.

The `de® cit’ hypothesis has some support in the wider, ® scal policies discourse.In England, the Swann Report (DES, 1985) set the scene for the language ofinstruction in schools. English is the medium of instruction and home languages canbe used only as a learning support in the process of language transition to English.Home languages can and sometimes are used in nurseries, early years and classroomsof some schools. These languages are usually not used for learning the subjectcurriculum but rather in support and complementary curriculum areas. In this respect,English is awarded higher cultural and linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1986) thancommunity languages. Knowing and learning through English brings higher rewardsthan through other languages. In fact, following the Swann Report the educationsystem in England does not of® cially recognise the currency of other languages forlearning.

The case is different though in Wales and parts of Scotland where the indigenouslanguages of Welsh and Gaelic are used in bilingual curricula for teaching andlearning. There is much recorded success of bilingual education in these parts of thecountry, showing that being bilingual and learning through two languages can bringcognitive advantages to the learners; for example, higher metalinguistic skills, higherlevel thinking skills and better social skills than monolingual peers (e.g. Campbell &Sais 1995; MacNeil 1994; Cummins & Swain 1986; Cummins 1984).

Furthermore, the other linguistic minority languages are attributed low status aslanguages, being perceived as less prestigious than European languages, although itis possible to take GCSE examinations in some community languages. Interestingly,the cognitive advantages of being bilingual are not attributed in the English edu-cation system to being bilingual in community languages. The education systemworks towards learning in English-only as soon as possible in learners’ careers andthe community language is not included in general learning. It is a subtractivesituation for emerging bilinguals.

Attributing values to different languages and discriminating between them islinguistic racism (also called `linguicism’ , Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988). It may beexpressed in demands for linguistic minority pupils and their families to speakEnglish and may prompt misguided `advice’ to linguistic minority parents to speak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

69Bilingualism and Literacies in Primary School

only English to their children. Linguistic racism is often not recognised. The Reformof the Race Relations Act 1976 (CRE, 1998) does not include linguistic racism in itsdiscussion. However, such views would profoundly in¯ uence the approach andpractices of teachers towards linguistic minority pupils. Consequently, it is importantthat the `de® cit’ hypothesis and linguistic racism are explicitly addressed in initialteacher education as well as in CPD, particularly around language and literacyteaching.

Most teachers in England are likely to teach one or more bilingual pupils, where`bilingual’ means that these children live in communities which use two or morelanguages and they are expected to interact in both in their daily lives. Between7±8% of the pupil population in England are linguistic minority pupils, which islikely to increase to about 20% in the next decade with increasing populationmovements from mainland Europe. Moreover, linguistic minority learners are nothomogeneous, and, speaking approximately 200 languages, they bring many homelanguages to the classroom, with a variety of heritages and home experiences.Despite the prevalent `de® cit’ hypothesis, most minority families share similar highexpectations of educational achievement for their children (e.g. Ledoux et al., 1997).The challenge is: how can teachers use this diversity to the advantage of children’ slearning? Good teachers will want to draw on the fundamental principle of teachingand learning which is to build on learners’ knowledge in order to progress.

Two Frameworks for Understanding Literacy

In a workshop which the author conducted recently, practitioners were asked toconsider what they think literacy is. Here are some of their ideas:

processing accessing your cultureunderstanding codes enjoymentwriting skills communicating ideasauditory memory visual communicationencoding/decoding skills letters, listsgenre and style religion, prayers, songs, hymns

They fall into two groups loosely coinciding with the two main theoreticalframeworks for thinking about literacy. That is, one approach is through the technicalskills of literacy and the other is through the social practices of literacy.

Psycholinguistic Approach/Technical Skills

The `technical skills’ framework sees literacy as the development and achievementof literacy skills, such as letter-sound correspondence, phonological awareness,knowledge of words, sentences and paragraphs as well as punctuation. It alsoincludes the notion of meaning through reading and writing, such as story, genre andstyle. It encompasses all the teachable/learnable skills to do with reading and writing.It is also called the psycholinguisti c approach to literacy. Skills can be tested andlearners can achieve different levels of accomplishment. Implicit in this frameworkis the understanding that once these skills have been achieved, they can be appliedsuccessfully to different situations involving reading and writing. Literacy skills canbe learnt without a cultural context.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

70 D. Martin

Social Practices

The idea that literacy can develop without a social context is rejected by education-ists such as Freire (1972) and Street (1995). They and others argue that literacy is avehicle for culture, a social practice, and `a tool ¼ used to interact with, describe andconstruct their ¼ environments’ (Luke & Kale, 1997, p. 15). It is what we read andwrite about that is important, and makes literacy meaningful. Consequently, situa-tions and communities, that is, places and people, create their own meanings,purposes and practices for reading and writing; for example, business, entertainment,religion, heritage, value and belief systems. Hence, this approach often refers toliteracies rather than literacy. Literacies contribute to forming personal and com-munity identity. There is also a further important distinction not made by thetechnical skills approach. There are literacy practices and literacy `events’ (Street,1995), where events are the regular happenings in the use of literacy, such as readingstories, singing hymns, signing documents, writing letters.

For the purposes of developing literacy, these two approaches are complementaryrather than exclusive. Learners need to develop the technical skills of literacy, as wellas to understand the notion of literacies, in terms of meanings and social and culturalpractices and events. This is particularly the case for linguistic minority pupils whooften have experiences of multilingual literacies, that is, literacies across theirlanguages. The challenge is to develop a new pedagogy from these two approachesfor developing literacies with primary bilingual learners.

In school the overarching practice and purpose of literacy is to develop andachieve levels of technical skill which allow learners to access the reading andwriting needed for curriculum learning. There are also other literacy practices withinthe school, exempli® ed by events such as reading for the social organisation ofschool, e.g. rules, rewards and punishments, sport ® xtures, drama rehearsals andlunch menus. While in the community, there are other literacy practices, such asreading/writing for safety (® re escape instructions, medicine and food labels), forinformation (the A±Z map, TV programme schedules) for memory support (shoppinglists), for greeting (cards and letters), for enjoyment (newspapers, comics). Thesepractices demand different types, rather than levels, of literacy skills.

The national concern which has grown over primary school children’ s measuredachievement in literacy skills, has drawn the response from the government toestablish a National Literacy Strategy. Within which framework does the NationalLiteracy Strategy (NLS) lie? The National Literacy Framework offers the followingde® nition:

¼ within the aims and purposes of the National Literacy Project, literacyis de® ned simply as `the ability to read and write’ . Literacy is treated as aunitary process with two complementary aspects, reading and writing.(DfEE, 1997, p. 45)

Thus, it locates itself within the psycholinguistic , technical skills approach to literacydevelopment. Its recommendations for best practice include analysis of the languagedemands of the curriculum, attending to links between spoken and written language,and reading and writing for meaning (DfEE, 1997, pp. 34±35). Examples of thispractice are documented in the literature (e.g. Verma et al., 1995) and in the LiteracyHour document itself (DfEE, 1998). The NLS does not concern itself with the socialpurposes of literacy whether they are for the community inside school or outside.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

71Bilingualism and Literacies in Primary School

The remainder of the paper explores the implications of this for teachers workingwith literacy with emerging bilingual learners.

Implications for Bilingual Learners

Good, effective teaching and learning draws on the knowledge and experiences thatlearners bring with them to the classroom. This section looks at the theoreticalframeworks of learning which support developing literacies. Issues are exploredconcerning literacy development in bilingual learners, such as the relationshipbetween spoken language and literacy, interdependence and interference in languagedevelopment, and the social experiences of literacy, and books in particular, thatbilingual learners bring to school.

Spoken Language and Literacy

There is debate about the relationship between spoken and written language (Street,1995). Spoken language is sometimes referred to as `orality’ as opposed to `oracy’which has come to be associated with notions of Standard English in the nationalcurriculum and earlier (see Peate (1995) for discussion). The debate focuses onissues such as the form of spoken and written language, natural vs. taught develop-ment and social vs. developmental relationship.

For some, there is a clear divide between spoken language and written language,where literacy is always a written, orthographic form, and spoken language is not.This perception allows no link between story telling, singing and clapping rhymesand their written forms. Furthermore, this perception would exclude other visualrepresentations such as maps, photographs, timetables and signs from literacy. Sucha relationship between spoken language and literacy is mutually exclusive andde® nes literacy too narrowly. Teachers working with bilingual learners need toexplore broader, more open relationships between orality and literacy, since manyprimary school bilingual learners have story telling and songs at home with theirparents and families (Blackledge, 1998).

However, some cultures may also perceive the relationship between spokenlanguage and literacy as one of formality, where the orthographic form is the moreformal and correct (Martin et al., 1998). In Martin et al.’ s study it was dif® cult topersuade the Panjabi assessor to write as she spoke, because she perceived the socialpractices and purposes of written and spoken forms as being different and notinterchangeable. This ® nding has implications for how teachers approach workingwith bilingual colleagues and multilingual literacies in school.

Another perspective of the relationship between spoken language and literacy isbetween natural skills and taught skills. That is, most people develop effortlessly andwithout teaching, skills in speaking and expressing themselves verbally, while we allneed to be taught literacy as a separate set of skills. Teachers’ roles are concernedwith teaching literacy skills. However, teachers of bilingual learners need to beaware that these learners may be being exposed to multilingual literacies throughpeers, parents and community language teachers.

In research studies the developmental link between spoken language and literacyis well established. In the psycholinguisti c framework one aspect of the relationshipis explored through phonological awareness, such as rhyming and alliteration skills,and the meaning of words and sentences. Speaking, reading, spelling and writing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

72 D. Martin

depend on a shared set of cognitive representations and processing mechanisms oflanguage forms (Stackhouse & Wells, 1997). It is seen as a developmental relation-ship where expertise in language skills is a predictor of literacy skills (e.g. Bryant &Bradley, 1983). In a social practices approach there is a similarly close relationshipbetween spoken language and literacy, although in contrast to the psycholinguisti capproach, it is not necessarily developmental. The relationship is based on sharedpurposes, and spoken language and literacy are linked by communicative needand appropriateness. Spoken language and literacy have a complementary relation-ship.

The implications for teachers of linguistically diverse classes are that they offerlearners the opportunity to explore and develop their spoken language and literacythrough both psycholinguisti c and social purposes approaches.

Interference, Interdependence and Independence

In bilingual studies, it is acknowledged that the relationship between developinglanguages and literacies is one of interdependence. That is, the development of onelanguage/literacy helps the development of subsequent languages and literacies(Cummins & Swain, 1986). However, there may be a reluctance to accept this basedon an older idea of `interference’ (Lado, 1957). This is an interpretation of bilingual-ism which argues that where two languages are developing and functioning togetherone language, the ® rst usually, `interferes’ with the development of the other, shownby grammatical, phonological and lexical confusions. In psycholinguisti c studies ofearly years bilingual learners, either in the ® rst years of school or as recent arrivals,`interference’ between written forms is explained as `transfer’ . For example, Dur-gunoglu et al. (1993) show that Spanish/English speakers will read a visuallyambiguous word in the non-target language. Elsewhere, in another study, 10-year-oldEnglish/Greek speakers who had recently arrived in Greek schools sometimesidenti® ed Greek letters with English speech sounds, showing that they transferredbetween languages (Bekos, 1997).

Regardless of `transfer’ occurring, Edwards (1998) shows in many examples ofclassroom practice with multilingual literacies, that bilingual learners are enriched bydeveloping two literacies. They draw on their skills and knowledge across literaciesto progress their learning through contrast and similarity. For example, decontextu-alised knowledge of print on a page allows children to generalise about features ofprint, such as words, punctuation, paragraphs. On the other hand, understanding thenotion of story facilitates them to look for literal and non-literal meaning, althoughthe cultural, contextual interpretation may be different.

An hypothesis about `independent’ literacy development across both languagesalso ® nds support. Research investigating phonological awareness skills in PanjabiEnglish bilingual children aged 6±7 years shows that they are developing phono-logical representations independently in both languages (Martin, 1997; Stuart-Smith& Martin, 1997). The differences in performance across the two languages seem tobe in¯ uenced by at least two factors; phonological characteristics and teaching. Thechildren respond to the inherent characteristics in processing the two phonologies;for example, English has more initial and ® nal clusters of sounds, e.g. spr-, -m p,than does Panjabi, which seem to be more dif® cult to process. There was evidencethat the children did signi® cantly better in English on alliteration and rhyming taskswhich seems attributable to English teaching approaches to literacy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

73Bilingualism and Literacies in Primary School

Experience of Literacies Through Books

Many children have literacy experience with books before coming to school andcontinue to have literacy experience with books outside and beyond school. Pri-mary school bilingual children encounter books and written materials in the home,church, temple and mosque, community language classes and in the library. Booksserve different purposes. By examining three examples which show respect, cul-tural distance and enjoyment obtained from books, we can get some insight intothe experiences of books which young learners, particularly those from linguisticminority communities, bring to school.

For many linguistic minority communities in England religion plays a centralrole in their community and home life. Holy books are treated respectfully andsome may not be touched by human hand. Followers of religions such as Sikhism,believe that their holy book is the living word of God. Gregory (1996) recounts anexperience with a Moslem colleague, making her aware of the respect for theKoran by Moslems.

A recent research study explored bilingual children’ s perceptions and feelingsabout developing literacy skills in school in English and in Panjabi (Martin &Stuart-Smith, 1998). The children, aged 6±7 years and with only 2 or 3 yearsof formal English literacy teaching, were considerably more positive about devel-oping English literacy skills. More striking was that they voiced many negativefeelings about developing Panjabi literacy skills which were related in mostcases to the `dif® culty’ of doing it, as well as to the poor quality books and storieswhich were `boring’ and unrelated to their lives because they were aboutIndia. Yet they all showed very positive feelings about reading religious bookswith the teacher in the Gurdwara, and reading books and telling stories at homewith their families. These ® ndings suggest that the context for developing literacyskills is important, where the context is people, books, location and purpose.When literacy serves the purpose of enjoyment and endorsing cultural and com-munity identity then children are happy developing English literacy and Panjabiliteracy.

The third example is from Ferdman (1990) where, at one point, he describeshimself as an 11-year-old and his delight in returning home from school to readhis books in Hebrew. He knows that reading in Hebrew is his world which hedoes not have to share with school. The feelings expressed by Ferdman, ofenjoyment, enrichment of identity and development of personal empowerment, arelikely to be shared by many bilingual learners who are developing multilingualliteracies.

These examples re¯ ect that many bilingual children may have experiences withliteracies and books before they come to school and while they attend school,which never impinge on the school. Importantly, young bilingual learners mayinitially experience some tension within their familiar experiences with books andtheir new experiences in school. The implications for teachers concern ® nding outabout the nature and role of multilingual literacy experiences which bilingualchildren bring to school and maintain beyond school. It may be important forteachers to explore any tensions which might emerge to in¯ uence motivation.Teachers also need to consider how they can build on these experiences positivelyand to develop materials and practices in order to build on multilingual literacyexperiences effectively to develop literacy in English.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

74 D. Martin

Building on Knowledge and Experience

One of the serious challenges facing teachers in England who teach in classroomswith linguistically diverse learners is the lack of documented examples of practicewhich seek to embrace and develop bilingual learners’ strengths. Thus, it is too easyto work from a `de® cit’ hypothesis, as set out at the beginning of this paper.

In the early years of formal literacy teaching it is important to use the knowledgeof both/all of the languages and literacies of bilingual learners. This does not meanthat teachers must teach the range of languages and literacies of the learners. Theissue here is to support the development of English literacy through knowledge aboutlanguages and literacies which the bilingual learners already have. While somedif® culties may be encountered, there is a great deal that can be learnt from offeringthese opportunities to bilingual learners.

The importance of developing other practices and pedagogies is based not only onnotions of cultural tolerance but also on sound pedagogic principles which willenable bilingual learners to have equal opportunities to achieve more of theirpotential. Approaching literacies from pupils’ experiences takes a Vygotskian per-spective. That is, we identify the level of knowledge where the learner is functioningand introduce new learning within the learner’ s Zone of Proximal Development(ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1962). Through negotiation and `scaffolding’ familiar multilingualexperiences, new learning about English literacy is introduced, through both psy-cholinguistic and social practice approaches. This is illustrated in some examples ofpractice in the literature and by other examples from teachers’ work.

Examples of Multilingual Classroom Practice

One teacher recounts how monolingual English teachers in his primary schoolprovided bilingual learners with opportunities to bring to the classroom the languagesand stories of their cultures. Pakistani, Bangaldeshi and Malaysian children toldstories in their home languages (Blackledge, 1994). The discussion generated in theclassroom educates all the learners, monolinguals and bilinguals, because it focuseson knowledge of language and raises metalinguistic awareness (being able to talkabout language) of languages and literacies.

Another example is given in the work of Charmian Kenner (1997). She describeshow nursery and reception classes create `literacy corners’ where the multilingualliteracies of many of the bilingual learners are displayed in forms of handwriting,letters, books, signs, with interesting materials for children to become involved, andexperiment, with the range of literacies. Parents are involved with the developmentof the literacy corners and some are also involved in curriculum literacy events suchas letter writing, story telling and reading in different literacies.

A further example is taken from the practice of a teacher working in a receptionclass with 4±5-year-olds. In order to ® nd out the range of languages and literaciesamong her young learners, she asked them to tell her about their home languages.She found some were knowledgeable and accurate in talking about their homelanguages. Those who were not, were helped by the opportunity to talk about theirhome languages and became more aware and knowledgeable, for example knowingthe name of their home language. She went on to explore the learners’ otherlanguages and literacies by suggesting they bring a book from home, written in theircommunity literacy. While this started during the school’ s book week, it was easy to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

75Bilingualism and Literacies in Primary School

develop into a regular weekly class event. The potential for discussion was substan-tial, for example, around story telling, discussing orthographies, pictures and draw-ings, and the purpose of the book. There was much potential to involve parents aswell.

The fourth example is also from the practice of a teacher working in a primaryschool. During drama lessons with a class of 10-year-olds she encouraged the pupilsto develop a play which would involve several of their languages. The childrendeveloped a story which moved easily between the languages to allow monolingualEnglish listeners also to follow the plot. The children wrote the script of the differentlanguages using English orthography. There were instances where the parentsbecame indirectly involved. For example, at home the parents would give advicewhen their children asked them about the appropriateness of a word or phrase in theirhome language. Another example of parental involvement was the high attendancefrom the parents of the bilingual learners in the class, when the play was performed.

The important point to note about these examples of practice is that they are ableto embrace multilingual literacies across a range of languages and literacies. Hencediscussions about knowledge of language and raising metalinguistic awareness arenatural and rich because of their appropriateness. Furthermore, in these discussionsthe status and values of minority languages and literacies are recognised andforegrounded. The cultural and linguistic capital of the children’ s and parents’experiences are highlighted and brought into perspective alongside English. Thebilingual learners do not feel that they need to keep their other literacies hidden.Talking about them and sharing them does not diminish the development of literacyin English.

There is an increasing number of these kinds of examples, often disseminatedamong teachers in local education authorities (LEAs) by their own staff. They nowneed to be drawn together and theorised to form a principled pedagogy, based onsocio-cultural theories of learning, for multilingual literacies’ teaching.

Working with Parents

The NLS includes recommendations about `home school collaboration’ in supportingliteracy development of their children (DfEE, 1997, pp. 32±33). However, there islittle accommodation for linguistic minority families. Given that many bilingualchildren have multilingual literacies at home, and schools expect parental support forschool literacy, this section explores home-school liaison with linguistic minorityfamilies. It also notes the role of schools, literacies and bilingual learners in widersociety.

There is a concern among teachers about the dif® culty they experience ininvolving linguistic minority parents in school events, particularly beyond the earlyyears. From the examples above of multilingual literacies class practice, literacyevents and practices in school which recognise the cultural and linguistic capital ofthe languages and literacies of bilingual learners are likely to gain support bothdirectly and indirectly from linguistic minority parents.

Studies of parents show that `middle class’ parents are likely to liaise more withschools and have more informed relationships than parents from lower socio-economic groups (Lareau, 1987). Linguistic minority families, also have little contactwith schools, particularly at secondary level (Ledoux, with Deckers & Koopman,1997). This can lead teachers once again towards a `de® cit’ model for interpretingparental motivation and to have negative perceptions of liaising with linguistic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

76 D. Martin

minority parents and families. Certain views may be expressed about the parentssuch as: `They don’ t speak English; they don’ t want to speak English; they aren’ tliterate in any language; they aren’ t interested in their children’ s schooling’ .

The implication of these ® ndings is that schools which have learners fromminority communities need to consider modifying their mechanisms of liaison withlinguistic minority parents. They need to review their attitudes towards linguisticminority parents and to develop a range of ¯ exible, parent-centred approaches forliteracy support. There are documented examples of alternative approaches tohome-school collaboration through linguistic minority family literacy projects whichwork with parents, exploring parental and family literacy practices (Delgado-Gaitan,1990; Allexsaht-Snider, 1994). These projects perceive literacy as a social processand they achieve a great deal beyond supporting children to achieve levels ofliteracy, such as improved communication within the family, and a less inhibitedattitude to school by the parents.

Hargreaves (1994) argues that organisational change comes through recognition of`expertise and process’ . Thus, if schools are to effectively liaise with linguisticminority parents and families they must recognise the expertise that many minorityparents have in languages and literacies other than English and to develop a processwhich empowers them to support their children’ s learning. Parents’ evenings andopen days which lack well-advertised multilingual/interpreter support, and are heldonly in the school and at times of the day which are dif® cult for shift workers, areunlikely to be supported by linguistic minority parents. On the other hand, structuresand processes which show ¯ exibility and sensitivity, such as recruiting trainedbilingual personnel, electing minority parent representatives on governing bodies anddeveloping curriculum approaches which recognise and include home literacies, arelikely to gain more support from linguistic minority families (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990).

However, it is well-documented (e.g. Cummins, 1997; Corson, 1993) that schoolsre¯ ect and reproduce the power relations of wider society. The inequalities of powerand status which operate in society outside the school, in¯ uence interactions in theclassroom between teachers, learners, and peers, and between teachers and parents(Allexsaht-Snider, 1994; Lareau, 1987). The NLS is developing in this social andeducational situation. The role of continuing professional development of teachers,particularly specialist EAL teachers, is crucial in understanding how to support thedevelopment of literacy/ies in bilingual learners.

Professional Development

At the beginning of the paper three challenges were identi ® ed for teachers of literacyto bilingual learners in primary school. Most professional development helps teach-ers to understand and respond to the ® rst two challenges; to debunk the `de® cit’hypothesis about developing two languages and to show that developing multilingualliteracies is enriching for all learners. Professional development courses on teachingliteracy encourage teachers to develop a wider knowledge base, by becoming moreknowledgeable about language and literacy development in emerging bilinguallearners. Most teachers’ courses link growth in content knowledge with practice,through developing and enhancing skills, strategies and through collaborative prac-tice by EAL teachers and mainstream teachers. They encourage teachers to becomere¯ ective practitioners. In this way most professional development courses for theNLS aim to respond to the challenges facing teachers of bilingual learners.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

77Bilingualism and Literacies in Primary School

Unfortunately, the third challenge of evaluating critically the dominant frameworkof the NLS often remains unaddressed. This is not surprising since it would meanchallenging not only ministerial authority about the curriculum, but more impor-tantly, the wider societal discourse about the pedagogy of developing literacies andtheir appropriateness for bilingual learners. To address this third challenge, pro-fessional development needs to raise teachers’ awareness of the power structureswhich support dominant discourses about literacy, education and linguistic minoritylearners. Professional development needs to offer teachers ways of questioning thesediscourses and to re-organise their knowledge about literacy and bilingualism inorder to develop practices which are more inclusive of learners’ knowledge oflanguage and literacies. In addition, professional development needs to be continuousand to support teachers in documenting changes of practice which are driven by theirown re-organised conceptual frameworks so that a body of evidence becomesavailable. With such a body of evidence, power structures implicit in current policiesfor developing literacy in young bilingual learners can be challenged, and alternative,more advantageous approaches be set out.

Conclusion

This paper has argued that the NLS has adopted a psycholinguistic /technical skillsapproach to literacy development, de® ning literacy as a unitary process concernedwith reading and writing. It does not take account of the importance of the socialpractices and purposes of reading and writing, nor of the in¯ uence that they have ondeveloping literacies. The implication for bilingual learners is that the NLS excludesthe other literacy experiences which they may encounter through the multilingualliteracy practices of their families and community. Further, contrary to teaching andlearning principles, the NLS does not encourage teachers to build on and developbilingual children’ s knowledge of literacies in the widest sense. In the face of theserious challenge to teachers developing literacy with bilingual learners which is thelack of documented practice developing multilingual pedagogies, the paper hasoffered examples of practice which embrace bilingual learners’ multilingual litera-cies and it has pointed out the need to theorise these examples into a pedagogy fordeveloping multilingual literacies in primary school learners. Finally, the papershows that the NLS offers teachers no guidance for working speci® cally withlinguistic minority families. Yet research con® rms that this group of families areamong the most alienated from the schooling process and that schools are aware ofthis. The paper argues that the home-school situation re¯ ects a power relationshipwhich operates in wider society. Teachers, and in particular EAL teachers, throughprofessional development and their own personal agency, will need to develop anddocument practices building on the strengths of bilingual learners in order to offerreal alternatives to current policies and practices.

Correspondence: Deirdre Martin, School of Education, University of Birmingham,Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.

REFERENCES

ALLEXSAHT-SNIDER, M. (1994) The social process of a family literacy project with bilingual families, in:A. BLACKLEDGE (Ed.) Teaching Bilingual Children, pp. 71±81 (Stoke, Trentham Books).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

78 D. Martin

BEKOS, I. (1997) Phonologica l awareness and the process of learning to read in Greek-English bilingua lchildren, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.

BLACKLEDGE, A. (1994) `We can’ t tell our stories in English’ : language , story and culture in the primaryschool , in: A. BLACKLEDGE (Ed.) Teaching Bilingual Children, pp. 43±59 (Stoke, Trentham Books).

BLACKLEDGE, A. (1998) A study of school-focuse d home literacy practices in Bangladeshi families inBirmingham, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.

BOURDIEU, P. (1986) The forms of capital , from J. E. RICHARDSON (Ed.) Handbook of Theory of Researchfor the Sociology of Education, Greenwood Press, pp. 241±58, in: A. H. HALSEY, H. LAUDER, P. BROWN

& A. STUART WELLS (Eds) (1997) Education: culture, economy, society, pp. 46±58 (Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press).

BRYANT, P. & BRADLEY, L. (1983) Categorising sounds and learning to read: a causal connection , Nature,301, pp. 419±421.

CAMPBELL, R. & SAIS, E. (1995) Accelerated metalinguisti c (phonological ) awareness in bilingua lchildren, British Journal of Developmenta l Psychology, 13, pp. 61±68.

COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (CRE) (1998) Reform of the Race Relations Act 1976 (London, CRE).CORSON, D. (1993) Language, Minority Education and Gender (Clevedon, Multilingua l Matters) .CUMMINS, J. (1984) Issues in Assessment of Bilingual Children (Clevedon, Multilingual Matters).CUMMINS, J. (1997) Cultural and linguisti c diversity in education : a mainstream issue?, Educational

Review, 49(2), pp. 105±114.CUMMINS, J. & SWAIN, M. (1986) Bilingualism in Education (New York, Longman).DELGADO-GAITAN, C. (1990) Literacy for Empowerment (London, Falmer Press).DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DfEE) (1997) The Implementation of the National

Literacy Strategy (London, HMSO).DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DfEE) (1998) The National Literacy Strategy (London,

HMSO).DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (DES) (1985) Education for All: The Swann Report (London,

HMSO).DURGUNOGLU, A.Y., NAGY, W.E. & HANCIN-BHATT, B.J. (1993) Cross-languag e transfer of phonologica l

awareness, Journal of Educationa l Psychology, 85, 3, pp. 453±465.EDWARDS, V. (1998) The Power of Babel: teaching and learning in multilingua l classrooms (Stoke,

Trentham Books).FERDMAN, B.M. (1990) Literacy and cultural identity , Harvard Educationa l Review, 60, pp. 181±204.FREIRE, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London, Sheed and Ward).GREGORY, E. (1996) Making Sense of a New World: learning to read in a second language (London, Paul

Chapman).HARGREAVES, A. (1994) Restructurin g restructuring : postmodernit y and the prospect s for educationa l

change , from Journal of Education Policy, 9, pp. 47±65, in: A. H. HALSEY, H. LAUDER, P. BROWN &A. STUART WELLS (Eds) (1997) Education: culture, economy, society, pp. 338±353 (Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press).

KENNER, C. (1997) A child writes from her everyday world: using home texts to develop biliteracy at

school , in: E. GREGORY (Ed.) One Child, Many Worlds, pp. 75±86, (London, David Fulton).LADO, R. (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures (Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan Press).LAREAU, A. (1987) Social-class differences in family-school relationships : the importance of cultural

capital, Sociology of Education, 60, pp. 73±85.LEDOUX, G. with DECKERS, P. & KOOPMAN, P. (1997) The meaning of `social class’ for Turkish,

Moroccan and Dutch `social climbers’ , in: G. HEYTING, J. KOPPEN, D. LENZEN & F. THIEL (Eds)Educationa l Studies in Europe (Oxford, Berghahan Books).

LUKE, A. & KALE, J. (1997) Learning through difference: cultural practices in early childhood languagesocialisation , in: E. GREGORY (1997) Making Sense of a New World: learning to read in a secondlanguage (London, Paul Chapman).

MARTIN, D. (1997) ESRC End of Award Report: phonologica l processing and literacy skills inbilingual/biliterate children. Obtainable from the author.

MARTIN, D. & STUART-SMITH, J. (1998) Exploring bilingua l children’ s perception s of being bilingua l and

biliterate:implication s for educationa l provision, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(2),pp. 237±254.

MARTIN, D., STUART-SMITH, J. & DHESI, K.K. (1998) Insider s and outsiders: translating in a bilingua lresearch project , in: S. HUNSTON (Ed) Language At Work, pp. 109±122 (Clevedon, MultilingualMatters in associatio n with the British Association for Applied Linguistics) .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013

79Bilingualism and Literacies in Primary School

MACNEIL, M.M. (1994) Immersion programmes employed in Gaelic-medium units in Scotland, Journalof Multilingua l and Multicultura l Development, 15([fr2/3]), pp. 245±252.

PEATE, M.R. (1995) Oracy issues in ESL teaching , in: M. VERMA, K. CORRIGAN & S. FIRTH (Eds) Workingwith Bilingual Children, pp. 154±163 (Clevedon, Multilingual Matters).

SKUTNABB-KANGAS, T. (1988) Multilingualism and the education of minority children , in: T. SKUTNABB-

KANGAS & J. CUMMINS (Eds) Minority Education: from shame to struggle, pp. 9±44 (Clevedon,Multilingual Matters).

STACKHOUSE, J. & WELLS, B. (1997) Children’ s Speech and Literacy Dif® culties: a psycholinguisti cframework (London, Whurr Publishers) .

STREET, B. (1995) Social Literacies: critical approache s to literacy in development , ethnograph y andeducation (London, Longman).

STUART-SMITH, J. & MARTIN, D. (1997) Investigatin g literacy and pre-literacy skills in Panjabi/Englishschoolchildren, Educational Review, 49(2), pp. 181±197.

TIMES EDUCATIONAL SUPPLEMENT (TES) (1998) `Don’ t asset strip Section 11’ , letter by Alsop, Bismal,Harding, McKen, Tyskerud & Wall, 23 October, p. 18.

VERMA, M., CORRIGAN, K. & FIRTH, S. (Eds) (1995) Working with Bilingual Children (Clevedon,Multilingual Matters).

VYGOTSKY, L. (1962) Thought and Language (Cambridge, Mass., (MIT Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

s un

d L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek]

at 2

1:45

29

Aug

ust 2

013