Being Bilingual: The Challenges and Opportunities of Bilingual Education - Essay Example

Being Bilingual: The Challenges and Opportunities of Bilingual Education A Discussion Paper Introduction People make use of the concept ‘bilingualism’ in various ways. For several people, it is an equal skill in communicating in two languages (Hamers & Blanc 2000). There are those who define it as the proficiency in two languages, but with higher ability in one language. Indeed, it is more usual for bilingual individuals, even those who were born bilingual, to be fairly superior in one language (Baker 2006). Bilinguals have an exceptional capability of shifting languages. While talking with monolinguals they moderately disable their other language. To speak to other bilinguals they use two languages, shifting and even combining the languages (De Ramirez & Shapiro 2006). This mechanism, referred to as code switching, is a normal occurrence and not confirmation of inferior language capabilities (De Ramirez & Shapiro 20006). In contrast, bilingual children acquire the skill of code-switching and practice it to enhance communication. Bilinguals interchange languages for several reasons. Commonly a term in the other language strikes the mind initially or more precisely communicates the meaning (Fishman 1991). Language change is driven by environment, addressee, topic, or the need to point out, to emphasise, or to show shared aims with an ethnic group (Heath 1983). At present, we have to examine bilingualism, biculturalism, multilingualism, and multiculturalism as normal phenomena. Old and new generations are putting their best efforts to become part of the global village or to become global citizens (Brisk, Burgos & Hamerla 2004). Essentially, in realising the objective, knowledge of different cultures and languages serves an important function. The core idea of this argument is the relationship between cultures and languages and how to effectively combine these two components in the process of language learning (Brisk et al. 2004). Language is an element of a culture, and the entirety and the element are always together. Having knowledge of different languages is also having knowledge of different cultures (Brutt-Griffler & Varghese 2004). Hence, teaching languages is about teaching cultures and ideals. Languages are successfully learned when they are perceived in a cultural framework, as argued by Schumann (1978) in his ‘acculturation model of second language learning’. The solution is to perfectly implant different languages and cultures into multilingual and multicultural learners, in order for the learners to understand each other (Schumann 1978). Nevertheless, at the advent of the 21st century, English is increasingly becoming the language of the global village. It is the global language today (Ladson-Billing & Gilborn 2004). While the European Union, United Nations, and other international organisations and scholarly journals have a number of official languages, practical realities almost always claim that English is one of the most used among the official languages (Datta 2007). Computer technologies have resulted in a vast expansion in the use of English (Issa & Ozturk 2008). This paper will review and discuss the benefits of bilingualism in a multicultural society and strategies that teachers can use to best provide for learners and develop and use their linguistic and cultural knowledge and experience in order to take advantage of the benefits of bilingualism. The paper will also present a personal testimony to what I have seen and observed in classrooms, in seeking advice from schools, and in training educators for demanding and tough tasks in bilingual education. The Importance of Bilingual Education in a Global Society Numerous individuals have the capability of learning a second language. It could be a different language in within a particular country or entirely foreign language from a different country. Today, a number of schools and organisations offering courses in foreign language are burgeoning all over the world. While gaining proficiency in another language, students have to learn its basic grammar and enrich vocabulary; becoming bilingual gives higher receptiveness to language, more readiness in thinking and a superior ability to listen (Baker 2006). It also enhances an individual’s knowledge of the mother tongue. It unlocks the door to a broad array of cultures. Furthermore, proficiency in other languages enhances employment or career prospects, offering myriads of job opportunities (Hamers & Blanc 2000). Being bilingual has benefits in different aspects such as social or communication benefits, cultural tolerance, cognitive advantages, and individual benefits. First, with regard to social or communication benefits, bilingual students take pleasure from writing and reading in various languages. They can read, interpret, appreciate and understand literatures in different languages. It provides a more profound awareness or knowledge of various ideas and practices (Coelho 2003). It helps enhance the manner of behaving and thinking inside the classroom (Brutt-Griffler & Varghese 2004). The delights of reading novels, poetry, and newspapers as well as the pleasure of communicating with loved ones are special for bilingual students. They do not experience difficulties communicating with people in a foreign country. Second, in relation to cultural tolerance, bilingualism provides an experience and access to various cultures inside a culturally diverse classroom. Proficiency in various languages gives a wealth of conventional and contemporary idioms, literature, music, sayings, history, poetry, and folk stories in various cultures (Datta 2007). Because of a broader cultural exposure, there is a higher acceptance of diversities in beliefs and practices within the classroom setting. Third, in terms of cognitive advantages, bilingual students can have a number of certain advantages in judgment or thinking. They have more terms for each suggestion, concept, and object. Thus, a bilingual student can possess a creative or critical thinking and a capability of thinking more readily (Brisk, Burgos & Hamerla 2004). The bilinguals are knowledgeable about which language must be used with which individual in a specific circumstance. Hence, they are more receptive to the requirements of the listener than monolinguals (Brisk et al. 2004). Bilingualism has an encouraging effect on cognitive or intellectual development of students. It improves and expands an individual’s mental growth. The newest studies have proved that bilingual people score higher in IQ tests than monolingual people (Frisby & Reynolds 2005). And lastly, in relation to individual benefits, bilingual students are capable of switching between various languages and communicate with various people in different languages. It boosts a sense of confidence (Hamers & Blanc 2000). Bilingualism generates a powerful connection in various people from various countries. Furthermore, bilingualism offers future job or employment opportunities. It provides a broader option of jobs in different fields (Hamers & Blanc 2000). Bilingual students can achieve successful career prospects. Nonetheless, in the 21st century, the dynamic and intricate networks generated by globalised and technology markets, accompanied with the significance of English and other major languages, defy our long-established beliefs of bilingual education (Ladson-Billing & Gilborn 2004). In 1953, UNESCO proclaimed that it was obvious that the native language of a child be used to educate children, particularly to teach them to read, but functional literacy, even in a person’s own language, is inadequate to be a citizen of the global village in the 21st century (Ladson-Billing & Gilborn 2004). And even though societies such as Basque Country and Catalonia formulated outstanding bilingual education curricula to promote Eusquera and Catalan in the second half of the last century, it turns out that Eusquera/Spanish or Catalan/Spanish bilingualism has become insufficient in a world wherein English serves a vital function (Fishman 1991). Basically, countries across the globe are providing alternatives to their children to be educated in two or more languages. Recently, the European Union has implemented a ‘Mother Tongue + 2’ policy persuading schools all over the EU to enhance children’s multilingual ability (Issa & Ozturk 2008, 52). For those reasons, a strategy of teaching is being encouraged that promotes the use of other languages besides the child’s native tongue in instruction (Issa & Ozturk 2008). All over the EU, courses of Language Awareness have turned up even in societies that thus far have been doubtful of bilingualism, for instance, France (Baker 2006). And young students move to higher grades with a ‘Language Passport’, stating their use of other languages aside from their native tongue in school, visits to other places, and travel to other countries (Baker 2006). Most parents and educators have the same opinion that the primary objectives in teaching students with a heritage language besides English are proficiency of content and of English in academic disciplines (Aldred, Byram & Fleming 2003). However, a heated political and academic debate exists over how best to realise these objectives and how significant it is to protect the native language of students in the process (Aldred et al. 2003). On a global scale, bilingualism is not at all uncommon (Datta 2007). Crystal (2004) mentions the reality that, in accordance to the British Council, an approximated one billion individuals all over the world are becoming proficient in English at any one time, and the growth of population in regions where English is a second language is thrice that in regions with English as a first language. Monolinguals are outnumbered by bilinguals in the world- a development that is predicted to persist (Baker 2006). As claimed by Viv Williams (2004, 5), thus, “on a global scale, multilingualism remains the norm.” On the other hand, bilingual communities within the UK continue to belong to the minority, whether they are speakers of native tongues such as Irish, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, or component of a growing population of communities founded by immigrants from regions such as Eastern Europe or South Asia (Hamers & Blanc 2000). Several of these communities can be found within inner cities; the effect of their language use on the UK in general, it may be argued, is diverse (Hamers & Blanc 2000). A current yearly school survey within the UK discovered that the percentage of students who spoke other languages besides English at home was increasing (BBC, 2006). When I went to a bilingual school in London, bilingual education was regarded as excellent education provided in two languages. The privileged class enrolled their children in schools that offered, other than the standard set of courses, the opportunity to become proficient in at least two languages, the precondition numerous assumed, to social and vocational success. These beliefs are intrinsic in several bilingual schools across the globe (Issa & Ozturk 2008). But in the United Kingdom, the concept bilingual education suggests a different connotation. It connotes the education of students whose language at home is not English (Hamers & Blanc 2000). Bilingual education is usually connected with metropolitan education, where the children of migrants usually discover themselves in qualifying programmes and where high dropout rates are seen as the inadequacy of students rather than the inadequacy of the education system (Blackledge 2000). Bilingual students are commonly labelled as not just children whose English is substandard, but as learners who are themselves second-rate. To teach such students effectively necessitates educational practices anchored in understanding how young learners become proficient in languages and moulded to the needs and skills of language minority students (GTC Response 2003). For instance, Spolsky (1989) argues that the social context affects the abilities of students to acquire a second language. Hence, young learners may easily acquire a second language if the learning opportunities and outcomes are complemented with the learner’s attitude towards language learning (Spolsky 1989). As argued by W.E. Lambert (1974) both diverse cultural and linguistic experiences play a role in attitudes, behaviour, and performance of bilinguals. Experience with a new culture and introduction of a new language shocks the cognitive, affective, and linguistic coordination of bilingual students (Lambert 1974). Recognising bilinguals as exceptional people who are proficient with more than one language, rather than as the summation of two monolinguals, and affected by a forceful cross-cultural encounter, instead of inflexible cultural stereotypes, is important for developing school guidelines, assessment methods, and classroom practices (Lemberger 1997). Bilingual students are particularly successful in the social and academic field when they give importance and develop their bilingualism and feel accustomed to both their host culture and their heritage culture (Mora 2000). Families and schools who encourage socio-cultural integration and bilingualism alleviate children’s adjustment to the new culture and social environment (Mora 2000). Their admission into the English society obliges them to learn English and adapt to the English culture. Nonetheless, it is not crucial, or sensible, that they do so at the expense of their mother tongue and culture that, for numerous people are the groundwork for their learning (Blackledge 2000). Well-designed bilingual schools or curriculums not just address the needs of bilingual learners but also expose monolingual learners to diverse languages and cultures (Cummins 2000). Instead of eradicating other cultures and languages in U.K. schools, English-oriented education has the chance to make the most of the cultural and linguistic diversity of our multicultural society (GTC Response 2003). The current perspective that has directed language minority students, schooling is qualifying, the main objective of which is to teach students English hurriedly. Due to the fact that English is regarded as the only way for knowledge acquisition, the fluency of students in English is the important prerequisite to obtaining an education (Frisby & Reynolds 2005). Bilingualism is viewed a problem and the cause of academic and linguistic deficiencies (Frisby & Reynolds 2005). The qualifying perspective concentrates limited resources, such as time, teachers, materials, and classrooms, into teaching English. Outcomes of programmes are assessed exclusively on effectiveness to learn and teach English (GTC Response 2003). The political programme channelling such insight toward instruction of language minority students asserts that it is not the task of public schools to enrich learners’ native languages (Lambert 1974). Several advocates of this assumption even view the development of other non-English languages a peril to our national identity and solidarity. Students come out of qualifying programmes with shifting levels of English skill and academic performance (Spolsky 1989). They view integration to English culture as a prerequisite to learn English as well as socioeconomic and academic success. Others disregard English culture because it intimidates their fundamental values (Brisk et al. 2004). Yet others, most sadly, disregard both cultures and as a result usually join gangs, drop out, or lead wasted lives (Brisk et al. 2004). The aim of quality education is to develop the highest potential of students. English acquisition, in the case of language minority learners, is only a component of this aim (Aldred et al. 2003). Excellent education, as illustrated by Cummins (1996) in his ‘identity investment theory, guides educational plan. Bilingual students acquire knowledge not merely through learning English but through their mother tongues (Cummins 1996). Their cultural experience influences their beliefs and values (Giles & Coupland 1991). First-rate education for language minority students merges issues of cultural awareness and language development in a continuous pursuit for quality education. Expected outcomes of excellent educational institutions involve academic achievement; people who can work with their families, communities, and the larger English society; and proficiency in the English language (Gregory, Long & Volk 2004). Proficiency in the native language will differ depending on the level of instruction, support for the use of language in the community, and the individual attributes of students. As claimed by Lambert (1974), the outcome of the effort towards bilingualism depends on the societal and individual component. This outcome may be positive or negative, or an underdeveloped bilingualism. The major force is the acceptance by families, students and schools of bilingualism as a competitive advantage (Gregory et al. 2004). Teachers hold the key to quality instruction. They decide on instructional practices, facilitate assessment, and lay out standards and models for their students. Teachers also manage the classroom, develop resources, build connections with families and communities and, through their own deeds, build models that may be instilled to learners for the rest of their lives. Teachers in classrooms with bilingual students decide, unconsciously or consciously, how to practice English and the home language and how to integrated different cultures. Teacher training and background, societal forces, school guidelines, and curricula preferences, obviously, set bounds for teachers. In spite of such external forces, teachers select practices and execute them in their classes. Hence, this paper does not assert invariable procedures to be used regardless of situations or attributes of the students. The purpose of this paper is to emphasise quality instructional and assessment activities. Teachers have to be flexible and responsive, to accommodate the needs of their students, and to integrate new knowledge and insights that come out from new scholarship or from their own experience of facilitating students. Primarily, teachers should be oriented by the expected outcomes and aims of socio-cultural integration, language development, and academic achievement (Frisby & Reynolds 2005). Teachers should enrich a teaching philosophy that takes into account the following standards (Frisby & Reynolds 2005: 351): Instruction should respect students, their language, and their culture. Instruction should be engaging, challenging, and supportive. Special strategies are needed for teaching English and teaching in English and for educating students with limited literacy and schooling. Class objectives should include language, culture, and academic content. Students should play an active role in learning. Classrooms should be organised to maximise learning, collaboration, and participation. Assessment should be integrated with instruction. Resources should be varied and serve the basic goals. Family and communities should be partners in the classroom. Teachers should maximise their skills and backgrounds. One barrier to putting into effect these recommendations is that numerous bilingual teachers and students have been exposed to teaching strategies in the past that basically differ from those applied in UK classrooms (Brutt-Griffler & Varghese 2004). This problem is what Cummins (1996) calls ‘the common underlying proficiency model’. For instance, when students are at ease with language lectures focused around grammar subjects, they have considerable difficulty with content-based language lectures. Intermediary methods can be applied to assist students in their adjustment effort (Cummins 1996). In my own experience, it took 2 months for me to modify my classes from lessons with almost no student involvement to student-oriented lectures. Slowly but surely, I stayed in the circle, facilitating the direction of the discussion and motivating student involvement. Steadily I become involved less and fell outside the circle to become an onlooker. At first only the appointed student leaders deliver a written speech. Gradually, more students took part voluntarily and in the end the very quiet students were encouraged by the leader to involve themselves. The shift was required by both students and teachers. They adapted well, benefitted from the new approach, and identified its advantages. The suggestions mentioned previously are functional for content-area and language instructors whether they teach in English or in the native language (Frisby & Reynolds 2005). These suggestions are derived from what teachers have employed effectively at the preschool, elementary, and high school levels. Particular cases from actual classrooms demonstrate the suggestions (Frisby & Reynolds 2005). Due to the fact that each classroom is a distinctive dimension, teachers should be responsive, tailoring lesson content, instructional resources, techniques, and language use not merely to grade level and age but to cultural contexts and the specific language skill of their students (Aldred et al. 2003). Teachers in the end choose what is best for their particular set of students but such choices require understanding of philosophies aforementioned, familiarity of their students, and specific situations of their classroom setting (Aldred et al. 2003). Content area and language teachers have to develop cross-cultural and bilingual environments in their classrooms irrespective of what language they exercise for teaching (Blackledge 2000). Classrooms become hamlets of students where all of them are respected, all languages are viewed legitimate communication media, and cultures are recognised as the rightful foundations for behaviour and knowledge (Blackledge 2000). According to Krashen (1982), particularly in his ‘the monitor model’, language learning occurs either in formal instruction setting such as the classroom, or in the linguistic setting such as at home, community, or mass media. Teachers also should expand the language capabilities and cultural awareness of students beyond their experience. Growth and development of students should be additive; specifically, students expand their language and acquire English proficiency (Commins & Miramontes 2006). The awareness they bring to class is a legitimate rationale for introducing new knowledge. This is what Krashen (1985) refers to as the ‘the input hypothesis’; according to this principle, a language’s grammatical features can be acquired if the learner’s received language input transcend his/her present linguistic level. Commonly the exercise of student’s culture and language in education is viewed as inefficient because it is seen as not helping the students beyond the phase they are at (Ladson-Billing & Gilborn 2004). It is vital to make the most of the students’ resources, but similarly essential to develop those resources. A well-endowed classroom shows high regard from the teacher toward every student and among students themselves. Traits and attributes of individual students are understood, ideas are encouraged and tested in an academic way, and personal intents of the teachers and students encourage learning (Hamers & Blanc 2000). George, a studious type of student in my class, showed interest and fascination in reading a sports magazine about Andre Agassi. His classmate butted in: “George doesn’t know anything about sports so he has no business doing that.” I overheard the comment and intervened. I said, “Well, as far as I know George and his brother always watch tennis games. So George is well-aware of tennis.” I did not only welcome a suggestion from a student but I also guided other students to be more accommodating. Later, I not only welcomed an idea from a student but transformed it into a discussion for the entire class. When a student asked authorisation to have a second look at a book because he thought her English was improved and he would now comprehend more, I did not simply agree, but also notified the entire class that it is an excellent idea to reread a text because as improved readers they would comprehend more. I responded well to my students and guided them in behaving in a respectable way toward each other. According to Cummins (1996), in his theory ‘identity investment’, esteem for languages necessitate that no dialect or language is discarded. A lot of teachers limit the use of language in the classroom because they think that the exercise of the two languages should be unmistakably detached and, hence, learning and teaching should be either in one language or the other (Ladson-Billing & Gilborn 2004). There are those who assume that it is justifiable to use multiple languages (Ladson-Billing & Gilborn 2004). Both viewpoints are well-founded, depending on the situations. Division of languages is more vital for the development of oral language, whilst content and literacy area teaching gain from the exercise of both languages (Brisk 1998). Teachers, as language exemplars, have to be more vigilant with language preference and students, as performing bilinguals, should be given the freedom to decide on the language (Issa & Ozturk 2008). Thus, teachers should (Brisk 1998: 166): Use the language of instruction defined by curriculum planning with flexibility for literacy and content area instruction. Consistently model language (L1 or L2) in language development classes. Never forbid students to use either language. Encourage students to use the language of the class to develop fluency. Objectively explain language varieties (academic, social, and regional). The language used in the classroom should be delineated by the curriculum for the specific course being taught. Every teacher has to abide by the curriculum plan and use language every time. These wide-ranging constraints enable high flexibility in content area course groups (Cummins 2000). When working with a set of students that had been in London for a year, I began each week lecturing the elementary vocabulary in English and Spanish and provided texts in Spanish. A professional bilingual teacher and graduate student helped in my class. I exerted a lot of effort to make sure that the students understood the readings while keeping English, the medium of instruction designated by the general plan for the group. These students attended a geography class taught in Spanish. When improving verbal language, educators should promote practice of the language of the class. Promoting the exercise of one language can be accomplished without prohibiting students to exercise the other (Baker 2006). For instance, a German immersion instructor strengthened the idea that the thing to do was to express oneself in German, both in written and oral. The students themselves persuaded each other to practice the language. When we attended the class to videotape the session for a documentary, the students talked even to the crew in German. When students could not speak in German, they express themselves in English and the instructor translated it in German. Hence students learned how to articulate their ideas although, in the beginning, they did not know how to express it in German. In contrast, when expanding content and literacy area, students should make use of both languages to participate completely in the classroom exercises (Blackledge 2000). The social environment motivates learners to turn into English as they become proficient in it. In order to promote the benefit of functional native language enhancement, teachers should invest time, topic, or discipline particularly for constant improvement of the home language (Coelho 2003). Freedom of use of language incites positive approaches toward both languages and literacy development, and the attendance of monolingual English speakers encourages the spontaneous progress of English proficiency (De Ramirez & Shapiro 2006). Literacy exercises in the home language sustain the development of a well-built language foundation (Datta 2007). Moreover, teachers should expand this knowledge by integrating components of not only English culture in their discussions, but components of the heritage cultures of students as well (Aldred et al. 2003). Commonly bilingual learners born in the UK have little awareness or are undecided about their ancestral culture (Brutt-Griffler & Varghese 2004). Vital to attaining socio-cultural integration is a firm foundation on ethnic culture and personal experience (Cummins 2000). Awareness and respect of English culture is more effectively realised when learners are guaranteed members of their community and are civil toward their home culture (Cummins 2000). Subject matters do not have to be necessarily related to personal experiences of students to ease recall and comprehension. The subject’s introduction begins with the suppositions that the students are aware of it, but teachers cannot suppose particularly what students are aware of because it will be grounded on their cultural milieu (Hamers & Blanc 2000). Learners differ in the manner they acquire and process information. That is, each learner has a specific learning style. Social class, cultural background, and ethnicity as well as individual preferences are forces affecting these differences (Spolsky 1989). In order to accommodate variations in styles of learning, teachers have to present lectures in different ways to go with the different ways that learners understand the material. Teachers should always resist stereotyping learners and reducing standards for the sake of adjusting their teaching to the learning styles of their students (Cummins 1996). Students’ ideas of proper classroom behaviour and attitude originate from what they have learned at home about the interactions between adults and children (Brisk et al. 2004). Students educated in a foreign country have learned the rules of conducts instituted in other educational systems. Educators teaching pupils of the same ethnic group have effectively integrated into their classroom the rules of conduct from the cultures of their students (Brisk et al. 2004). When I arrive at school in a village in London, several of my pupils are waiting to assist me in bringing instructional materials to the classroom. I organise the materials and my students set up the classroom, hand out the exercises, and finally make sure that everybody is in the classroom when the discussion starts. Various students help over the whole year without having assigned tasks. I minimise close supervision and verbal instructions, and permit students to choose, systematise, and allocate specific assignments. By making use of culturally matching techniques, I achieved an organised classroom environment in which students flourish. Cultural adjustments to address classroom management and interactions are more challenging when learners come from different cultural backgrounds (Cummins 2000). However, excellent educators spontaneously make adjustments to enhance classroom and communication environment: “[A]lthough all schools cannot become ‘culturally compatible’, they can nevertheless become ‘multiculturally sensitive’ (Nieto 1992: 120). Teachers function as cross-cultural proponents, assisting students in analysing, contrasting, and comparing knowledge from the English culture and their own culture. Teachers who grew up in a different culture from the students should bring forth cultural information from the families, community, and students in order to become effective in analysing and explaining cultural differences. This incontestable mission, to learn from learners, is one of the forces that can make instructional practices in culturally diverse classrooms very fulfilling. Conclusions A great deal of the debate on bilingual education is needless, contradictory, insincere, and degenerative. It is needless because rather than concentrating effort to well-thought out educational practices, it has encouraged supporting particular ‘frameworks’ grounded only on what language must be intended for what objective. It is contradictory because majority of the criticisms on bilingual education stem from speculative anxiety that English will be abandoned in the United Kingdom, whilst, in reality, the rest of the world is anxious of the contrary; the appeal of the English language and fascination in English culture are viewed by non-English-speaking societies as a hazard to their own cultures and languages. It is insincere because most critics of exercising languages other than English as a medium of instruction also aim to endorse foreign language prerequisites for graduation in high school. Lastly, it is degenerative and chauvinistic because the rest of the world views skill in more than one language to be the indication of quality education. The political effort to justify the continuation of bilingual education in schools has squandered a good deal of energy in the pursuit for an ‘ideal’ approach. Overdependence on specific approaches usually detracts from evaluation of what really takes place in schools. When supporters of bilingual schooling allow themselves to be dragged in the fight over language preference, they too are usually detracted from what should be their main objective: providing good training to such learners in manners that incorporate them into their own and the mainstream culture. If teachers have the capacity to disregard their specific prejudices about the use of language they would unearth ample evidence to guide them toward delivering quality training in any language. They would acknowledge that the task of educational institutions is to train students for them to have options when they finish schooling. Teaching bilingual learners has to go beyond simply training them in the English language or simply sustaining their mother tongue. The dimension of employment requires that graduates attain not merely advanced literacy proficiencies in English, and even skills in other languages, but as well as critical aptitude and the capability of learning new things. Students skilled in two languages possess not only the capability but also the privilege to be trained to cope with the challenges of a global or multicultural society. Proponents for bilingual learners have to put into effect their attempt on two domains. The first domain is the political resistance to advocate home languages in education, not merely on behalf of language development and learning, but to deliver clear and understandable content education. Nevertheless, more important, is enhancement of the quality of education provided to these learners. The political resistance will prevent the regression to previous policies of enforcing the English language at the detriment of other languages. Scholarship and execution oriented on what is really taking place in the schools will make sure that the bilingual education merits our approval because they deliver quality education. References Aldred, G., Byram, M. & Fleming, M. (2003) Intercultural Experience and Education, Cleveland: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2006) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Cleveland: Multilingual Matters. BBC News (2006) Rise in Pupils Without English, Ceefax . Blackledge, A. (2000) Literacy, Power and Social Justice, UK: Trentham Books. Brisk, M. E. (1998) Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brisk, M.E., Burgos, A., & Hamerla, S. (2004) Situational Context of Education: A Window into the World of Bilingual Learners Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brutt-Griffler, J. & Varghese, M.M. (eds) (2004) Bilingualism and Language Pedagogy, UK: Multilingual Matters. Coelho, E. (2003) Adding English: A Guide to Teaching in Multilingual Classrooms, Pippin Publishing. Commins, N.L. & Miramontes, O.B. (2006) Addressing Linguistic Diversity from the Outset, Journal of Teacher Education , 240+. Crystal, D. (1996) The Language Revolution, Malden: Polity Press. Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society, California Association for Bilingual Education . Cummins, J. (2000) Language Power and Pedagogy, Cleveland: Multilingual Matters. Datta, M. (2007) Bilinguality and Literacy: Principles and Practice, London: Continuum. De Ramirez, R.D. & Shapiro, E. (2006) Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Evaluation of Reading Skills of Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners in Bilingual Education Classrooms, School Psychology Review , 356+. Fishman, J. (1991) Reversing Language Shift, Cleveland: Multilingual Matters. Frisby, C. & Reynolds, C.R. (2005) Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology, Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. Giles, H. & Coupland, N. (1991) Language Contexts and Consequences, Open University Press. Gregory, E., Long, S. & Volk, D. (eds) (2004) Many Pathways to Literacy, London: RoutledgeFalmer. GTC Response. (2003) Aiming high: Raising the achievement of ethnic minority pupils, England: DfES Consultation. Hamers, J. & Blanc, M.H.A. (2000) Bilinguality and Bilingualism, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. (1983) Ways with words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Issa, T. & Ozturk. (2008) Practical Bilingual Strategies for Multilingual Classrooms, Leicester: UKLA Publications. Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practices of Second Languages Acquisition, Pergamon Press. Ladson-Billing, G. & Gilborn, D. (eds) (2004) Reader in Multicultural Education, London: RoutledgeFalmer. Lambert, W. (1974) Culture and language as factors in learning and education, In F. Aboud (Ed.), Cultural factors in learning and education, Washington: 5th Western Washington Symposium on Learning. Lemberger, N. (1997) Bilingual Education: Teachers Narratives, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mora, J. K. (2000) Staying the Course in Times of Change, Journal of Teacher Education , 345. Nieto, S. (1992) Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education, New York: Longman. Schumann, J. (1978) The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition, Newbury House. Spolsky, B. (1989) Conditions for Second Language Learning, Oxford University Press. Williams, V. (2004) Multilingualism in the English-speaking World, Oxford : Blackwell. Read More