This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 21 November 2014, At: 23:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

Cultural and Linguistic Diversity inEducation: a mainstream issue?Jim Cummins aa The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of theUniversity of TorontoPublished online: 20 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Jim Cummins (1997) Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Education: amainstream issue?, Educational Review, 49:2, 105-114, DOI: 10.1080/0013191970490202

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191970490202

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Review, Vol. 49, No. 2, 1997 105

Cultural and Linguistic Diversity inEducation: a mainstream issue?

JIM CUMMINS, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University ofToronto

ABSTRACT This paper argues that issues related to cultural and linguistic diversityhave remained at the margins of educational reform efforts in many countries. Thismarginalisation is interpreted as a reflection of persistent patterns of coercive relationsof power in the wider society. A framework is presented for analysing the educationalattainment of culturally and linguistically diverse pupils that highlights the ways inwhich societal power relations influence the negotiation of identity between educatorsand students. Within the context of this framework, in societies characterised byunequal power relations among groups, pedagogy is never neutral; in varying degrees,the interactions between educators and pupils always either reinforce coercive relationsof power or promote collaborative relations of power. Educational reform efforts thatignore the intersections of power and pedagogy inevitably will tend to reinforce coerciverelations of power.

Introduction

Issues related to equity and education have been fiercely debated in many countriesduring the past 30 years. In different contexts and at different times proponentsof assimilationist, multicultural and anti-racist orientations to diversity have allproclaimed 'equity' as their primary consideration. At a more specifically linguisticlevel, the benefits for English language learners (ELL) of various forms of bilingualeducation, mother tongue support, English immersion, mainstream English-as-a-second-language (ESL) and withdrawal ESL support have all been argued.

For the most part these debates have taken place outside the realm of mainstreameducation reform efforts, accurately reflecting their perceived status as 'sideshow'events, footnotes to more serious concerns. In the UK for example, the NationalCurriculum documents contain few references to these issues. Similarly, in mostEuropean Union countries, pilot projects addressing issues of diversity producedfew tangible changes in overall educational structures. Reid & Reich (1992), in theiroverview of 15 pilot projects implemented between 1986 and 1991, suggested that,for a large majority, mother tongue teaching remained a marginal activity, minoritycommunities were not systematically involved in the development and planning ofschool subject content, teaching of the majority language tended to be 'naivelyassimilatory' or was seen as 'culturally neutral' (p. 241) and structural changes ineducational provision were not a concern to the educational authorities. Similarly,although educational provision for ELL pupils in Canada and the USA is debated

0013-1911/97/020105-10 © 1997 Educational Review

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 23:

42 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

106 J. Cummins

hotly, as documented below, it is rarely viewed as a central component of mainstreameducational reform. For example, a major study of 73 Californian schools that werein the process of restructuring revealed a silence about issues of culture and identityand 'heavy barriers to bringing diversity and equity issues into the school's plans tobetter serve their students' (Olsen et al, 1994, p. 31).

This marginalization of diversity issues is particularly surprising in view of thefact that in many of the larger cities of both Canada and the USA, so-called'minority' pupils in fact constitute the majority student population. In the schoolsof metropolitan Toronto, for example, about 60% of the pupils come from homeswhere a language other than English or a non-standard form of English is usuallyspoken. Furthermore, in both Canada and the USA, certain groups of culturallydiverse pupils are massively over-represented in school failure rates, the reversal ofwhich is one of the major purposes of school restructuring.

In the present paper, I present a theoretical framework for analysing educationalprovision for culturally and linguistically diverse pupils. The framework attempts tolink the interactions between educators and pupils in the school and classroomcontext (henceforth micro-interactions) with the relations of power that operate inthe wider society between dominant and subordinated groups (henceforth macro-interactions). It focuses on the ways in which learning in school is intertwined withprocesses of identity negotiation between educators and pupils and argues that inculturally and linguistically diverse contexts the negotiation of identity always eitherreinforces or challenges patterns of coercive relations of power in the wider society.From this perspective, the marginalisation of issues related to diversity in educationalreform initiatives is a reflection of persistent patterns of coercive relations of powerin the wider society.

Power, Identity and Learning

Concerns about national identity are clearly implicated in the on-going debates inmany countries about issues of racism, immigration and language. An illustrativestatement that probably still reflects majority sentiment in many English speakingcountries comes from a speaker at the 1913 Presbyterian Pre-Assembly Congress inToronto (quoted by Harney & Troper, 1975, p. 110):

The problem is simply this: take all the different nationalities, German,French, Italian, Russian and all the others that are sending their surplusinto Canada: mix them with the Anglo-Saxon stock and produce a uniformrace wherein the Anglo-Saxon peculiarities shall prevail.

The fear that diversity might undermine national identity is no less apparent in UShistorian Arthur Schlesinger Jr's more recent warning about the dangers of bilingualeducation (1991, pp. 108-109):

Bilingualism shuts doors. It nourishes self-ghettoization, and ghettoizationnourishes racial antagonism Using some language other than Englishdooms people to second-class citizenship in American society Monolin-gual education opens doors to the larger world . . . institutionalized bilin-gualism remains another source of the fragmentation of America, anotherthreat to the dream of one people.

There is no hint in Schlesinger's diatribe against diversity that racism in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 23:

42 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Diversity in Education 107

wider society, rather than bilingualism per se, might constitute a more reasonableexplanation of why 'using some language other than English dooms people tosecond-class citizenship in American society'. A common element in the warningsabout diversity in countries around the world is that they invariably problematisethe culture, attitudes and language use of the subordinated group, which is expectedto become invisible and inaudible either through assimilation or exclusion. Diversitybecomes a problem only when subordinated groups refuse to accept their pre-ordained status and demand 'rights'.

This process reflects the operation of coercive relations of power which can bedefined as the exercise of power by a dominant group (or individual or country) tothe detriment of a subordinated group (or individual or country). Coercive relationsof power are reflected in and shaped through the use of language or discourse andusually involve a definitional process that legitimises the inferior or deviant statusaccorded to the subordinated group (or individual or country). In other words,the dominant group defines the subordinated group as inferior (or evil), therebyautomatically defining itself as superior (or virtuous).

No classroom or school is immune from the influence of the coercive powerrelations that characterize societal debates about diversity and national identity. Ona moment-to-moment basis educators, in their interactions with culturally andlinguistically diverse pupils, sketch their ideological stance in relation to issues ofdiversity, identity and power. The science and practice of pedagogy is never neutralin relation to these issues in spite of its frequent self-portrayal as innocent andfocused only on 'learning outcomes'.

To illustrate, let us look at historical and current practice in this area, particularlywith respect to pupil language choice in school. The ways in which coercive poweris used to convey a message about national and individual identity is very clear inthe Welsh and Kenyan examples below, but it is also evident in the apparently morebenign contemporary US example recounted by Elsa Auerbach (1995).

The 'Welsh not' came into existence after the 1870 Education Act in Britain as ameans of eradicating the Welsh language. Any child heard speaking Welsh in schoolhad a heavy wooden placard attached to rope placed over his or her shoulders. Theplacard reached to the child's shins and would bump them when the child walked.If that child heard another child speaking Welsh, he or she could transfer the 'Welshnot' to the other child. The child carrying this placard at the end of the day wasbeaten (Evans, 1978). Richard Llewellyn gives an account of this type of punishmentin his autobiographical novel How Green Was My Valley:

I heard crying in the infants' school as though a child had fallen and thevoice came nearer and fell flat upon the air as a small girl came throughthe door and walked a couple of steps towards us. . . . About her neck apiece of new cord, and from the cord, a board that hung to her shins andcut her as she walked. Chalked on the board, in the fist of Mr. Elijah-Jones-Sessions, I must not speak Welsh in school. . . . And the boarddragged her down, for she was small, and the cord rasped the flesh on herneck, and there were marks upon her shins where the edge of the boardhad cut. (Llewellyn, 1968, p. 267)

Interestingly, Ngiigi wa Thiongo (1986) gives a very similar account from theKenyan context:

Thus, one of the most humiliating experiences was to be caught speaking

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 23:

42 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

108 J. Cummins

Gikuyu in the vicinity of the school. The culprit was given corporalpunishment—three to five strokes of the cane on bare buttocks—or wasmade to carry a metal plate around the neck with inscriptions such as IAM STUPID or I AM A DONKEY. Sometimes the culprits were finedmoney they could hardly afford, (p. 11)

Irrelevant examples from the past? Well, compare them with the following accountin which the surface structure of identity negotiation is certainly more benign butthe deep structure is quite similar. In discussing how power dynamics enter into theESL classroom, Auerbach highlights the 'commonsense' axiomatic view that onlyEnglish is an acceptable medium of communication:

Teachers devise elaborate games, signals, and penalty systems to enforcethe use of English only. For example, an article in a recent issue of theTESOL Newsletter (June, 1990) extols the virtues of fining students forcommitting 'crimes' against the teacher's first language, including the crimeof using their first language; the teacher told students, 'This is an English-only classroom. If you speak Spanish or Cantonese or Mandarin orVietnamese or Thai or Russian or Farsi, you pay me 25 cents. I can berich'. (1995, p. 25)

In these three examples, we see educators defining their roles in ways that entailassumptions both about the relevance and status of English and the students' firstlanguage (LI) in the school and wider society and about the negative effects ofstudents' LI on their acquisition of English. Schlesinger's refrain that 'bilingualismshuts doors' is alive and well in many of the classrooms to which subordinatedgroup pupils are consigned. The message is not just about bilingualism and languagelearning as linguistic and educational phenomena; more fundamentally it is amessage about what kinds of identity are acceptable in the classroom and society.For subordinated group pupils, the price of admission into the teaching-learningrelationship, and access to opportunity within the wider society, is frequentlyrenunciation of self.

In some cases, students successfully cast off their old skins and become who theyare expected to be; others are either not given that option or decide to reject it,frequently withdrawing mentally and finding identity and affirmation on the streetsrather than in the classroom. In both cases, the costs can be high, as illustrated bythis account from Antti Jalava (1988) of his reaction to the rejection of his Finnishidentity that he experienced in Swedish schools:

When the idea had eaten itself deeply enough into my soul that it wasdespicable to be a Finn, I began to feel ashamed of my origins. . . . ASwede was what I had to become, and that meant I could not continue tobe a Finn. Everything I had held dear and self-evident had to be destroyed.. . . My mother tongue was worthless—this I realized at last; on thecontrary it made me the butt of abuse and ridicule. So down with theFinnish language! I spat on myself, gradually committed internal suicide,(p. 164)

Similar themes emerge in accounts of the experience of African American pupilsin the USA and Afro-Caribbean pupils in Britain. Ladson-Billings (1995), forexample, points out: 'The problem that African American students face is the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 23:

42 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Diversity in Education 109

constant devaluation of their culture both in school and in the larger society'(p. 485). Fordham's research (1990, p. 259) similarly highlighted the fact that ' . . .within the school structure, Black adolescents consciously and unconsciously sensethat they have to give up aspects of their identities and their indigenous culturalsystem in order to achieve success as denned in dominant-group terms'. In theBritish context, Morgan (1996) has argued that ' . . . children of African-Caribbeanheritage in Britain are caught up between two cultures, one of which they seedevalued and the other with which they do not fully identify but which is seen assuperior by society' (p. 39).

In short, educators' interactions with pupils reflect the ways they have definedtheir own roles or identities as educators. Role definitions refer to the mindset ofexpectations, assumptions and goals that educators bring to the task of educatingculturally diverse students. These role definitions determine the way educators viewpupils' possibilities and the messages they communicate to pupils with regard to thecontributions they can make to their societies. Thus, educators are constantlysketching a triangular set of images in their interactions with pupils:

• an image of their own identities as educators;• an image of the identity options that are being highlighted for pupils; consider,

for example, the contrasting messages conveyed to pupils in classrooms focusedon critical inquiry compared with classrooms focused on passive internalizationof information;

• an image of the society into which pupils will graduate and to which they arebeing prepared to contribute.

In societies characterised historically by racism and the operation of various formsof class- and gender-based discrimination, educators' role definitions, and theinteractions with pupils to which these role definitions give rise, can never be viewedas independent of power relations. The micro-interactions between educators andpupils will tend to reflect, in varying degrees, the macro-interactions betweendominant and subordinated groups in the wider society.

Individual educators, however, are by no means powerless; they have manyopportunities within the school to challenge the operation of the societal powerstructure. Specifically, they can become advocates for the promotion of pupils'linguistic talents, they can pursue partnerships with culturally diverse parents andcommunities to bridge the gap between home and school cultures and they canimplement pedagogical approaches that develop forms of critical literacy that enablepupils to resist devaluation and 'take control of their own lives', as Alex McLeod(1986) has expressed it. When educators define their roles in terms of promotingsocial justice and equality of opportunity, their interactions with culturally diversepupils are more likely to embody a transformative potential that challenges coerciverelations of power as they are manifested in the school context.

Educational structures also reflect societal power structures. These structuresinclude the organisation of schooling in a broad sense that includes policies,programmes, curriculum and assessment. This organisation is established to achievethe goals of education as defined primarily by the dominant group in the society.Among the structures that might systematically discriminate against culturally andlinguistically diverse pupils are the following:

• ability grouping and streaming practices that deny pupils in low-ability groupsaccess to quality instruction (Oakes, 1985);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 23:

42 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

110 J. Cummins

COERCIVE OR COLLABORATIVE RELATIONS OF POWERMANIFESTED IN THE MACRO-INTERACTIONS BETWEEN

SUBORDINATED GROUPS AND DOMINANT GROUP INSTITUTIONS

EITHER

REINFORCING COERCIVE RELATIONS OF POWER

OR

PROMOTING COLLABORATIVE RELATIONS OF POWER

FIG. 1

• the use of culturally and linguistically biased IQ tests to give culturally diversepupils a one-way ticket to special education or low-track programmes (SeeCummins, 1984);

• teacher education institutions that until recently have treated issues related toculturally diverse pupils as marginal and that have sent new teachers into theclassroom with minimal information regarding patterns of language and socialdevelopment among such pupils and few pedagogical strategies for helping pupilslearn:

• a curriculum that reflects only the experiences and values of middle-class English-speaking pupils and effectively suppresses the experiences and values of culturallydiverse pupils;

• the absence from most schools of professionals capable of communicating in thelanguages of culturally diverse pupils and their parents; such professionals couldassist in functions such as LI instruction, LI assessment for purposes of placementand intervention and parent/school liaison;

• criteria for promotion to positions of responsibility (e.g. headteachers) that takeno account of the individual's experience with or potential for leadership in theeducation of culturally diverse pupils.These educational structures constitute a frame that sets limits on the kinds of

micro-interactions that are likely to occur between educators and pupils.As expressed in Fig. 1, educational structures combine with educator role defini-

tions to determine the micro-interactions between educators, pupils and communi-ties. These micro-interactions form an interpersonal or an interactional space withinwhich the acquisition of knowledge and formation of identity is negotiated. Power

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 23:

42 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Diversity in Education 111

is created and shared within this interpersonal space where minds and identitiesmeet. As such, the micro-interactions constitute the most immediate determinant ofstudent academic success or failure.

These micro-interactions between educators, pupils and communities are neverneutral; in varying degrees, they either reinforce coercive relations of power orpromote collaborative relations of power. In the former case, they contribute to thedisempowerment of culturally diverse pupils and communities; in the latter case, themicro-interactions constitute a process of empowerment that enables educators,pupils and communities to challenge the operation of coercive power structures.

In contrast to coercive relations of power, collaborative relations of power operateon the assumption that power is not a fixed pre-determined quantity, but rather canbe generated in interpersonal and intergroup relations. In other words, participantsin the relationship are empowered through their collaboration such that each is moreaffirmed in her or his identity and has a greater sense of efficacy to create change inhis or her life or social situation. Thus, power is created in the relationship andshared among participants. The power relationship is additive rather than subtractive.Power is created with others, rather than being imposed on or exercised over others.Within this framework, empowerment can be defined as the collaborative creation ofpower.

Expressed differently, the ways in which identities are negotiated in the inter-personal spaces created in educator-pupil interactions plays a major role in theextent to which pupils will engage academically. Affirmation of the identities ofsubordinated group pupils necessarily entails a challenge to the societal process ofsubordination. This perspective suggests that programme interventions aimed atreversing the underachievement of culturally diverse pupils will be successful to theextent that these interventions result in educator-pupil interactions that challengepatterns of coercive relations of power in the broader society. Thus, communicatingto pupils that their bilingualism is a valuable asset both for them and their societychallenges the societal discourse that proclaims 'bilingualism shuts doors'. Involvingparents and minority communities as partners in a shared educational enterprisechallenges the societal discourse that attributes pupils' academic difficulties to theircultural, linguistic or genetic backgrounds. Similarly, instruction that acknowledgesand builds on pupils' prior experience and addresses issues that pupils see as relevantto their lives is much more likely to engage pupils academically than transmission-oriented instruction that effectively suppresses pupils' experience—what Paulo Freire(1983) termed a 'banking' education where teachers define their roles in terms ofdepositing information and skills in pupils' memory banks.

Conclusion

The framework outlined in the present paper focuses on how power relationsoperating in the broader society influence the interactions that occur betweeneducators and pupils in the classroom. These interactions can be empoweringor disempowering for both educators and pupils. Culturally diverse pupils aredisempowered educationally in very much the same way that their communities havebeen disempowered historically in their interactions with societal institutions. Thelogical implication is that these pupils will succeed academically to the extent thatthe patterns of interaction in school reverse those that prevail in the society at large.In other words, in multicultural contexts characterized by unequal power relations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 23:

42 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

112 J. Cummins

among groups, a genuine commitment to helping all pupils succeed academicallyrequires a willingness on the part of educators, individually and collectively, tochallenge aspects of coercive power structures in the wider society.

Not surprisingly, few school systems are willing to commit themselves beyond arhetorical level to challenging coercive relations of power in the wider society thatfunds them. By the same token, issues of power and its negotiation in society andschools seldom represent a significant component of teacher education courses.These issues are usually seen as even less relevant to the training of schoolpsychologists and speech/language specialists, even in educational situations (suchas metropolitan Toronto) where ELL students constitute the numerical 'mainstream'.One blatant illustration of the persistence of coercive power relations in the Canadiancontext is the fact that IQ tests that are culturally and linguistically biased in theextreme are still administered as a matter of course to virtually all candidates forspecial education, regardless of their linguistic and cultural background.

From the perspective of the present framework, the marginalisation of issuesrelated to diversity in the pre-service preparation of educators and in the operationand policy making processes of schools is not a matter of neglect or innocentomission. It can only be understood as a function of coercive relations of powerthat continue to permeate our school systems. This coercive power structure is onlyreinforced by multicultural rhetoric that fails to address seriously either systemicstructures that discriminate against culturally diverse pupils or the role definitionsof educators vis-a-vis diversity issues.

When the task of educating ELL pupils is left to specialist ESL or bilingualteachers and no modifications are made in 'mainstream' educational structures toaccommodate diversity, the interactions that pupils experience in 'mainstream'classrooms are unlikely to promote either academic growth or affirmation of pupilidentity. Mainstream teachers are not prepared (in either sense of the word) to teachthem. This unfortunate situation is exacerbated by teacher education colleges thatcontinue to consign issues of diversity to the margins of concern. In the Canadiancontext, a large majority of Faculties of Education treat diversity and ESL issues asperipheral to their 'core' mandate of teacher education. In cities such as Toronto,this orientation amounts to preparing teachers to teach the pupil population thatexisted 30 years ago, rather than the one that exists today (Cummins & Cameron,1994). It also has direct implications for the kind of interactions that these teacherswill orchestrate with culturally diverse pupils in their classrooms. Inequities in pupilopportunities will be perpetuated as long as pre-service and in-service education ofteachers focus on instructional techniques and strategies to the exclusion of issuesof power relations and their intersection with processes of identity negotiation inclassroom interactions.

How can educators, pupils and communities resist the operation of coerciverelations of power in schools and society? Clearly, it is unrealistic to expect societalinstitutions to make visible their own hegemonic practices. Thus, resistance mustoriginate with individuals and must focus initially on making visible the powerrelations that underlie the 'normal' organization of curricula and instruction.Fortunately, we are not short of documented accounts of educators, pupils andcommunities who have succeeded in doing just this (McLeod, 1986, Bigelow et al,1994; Frederickson, 1995; Cummins, 1996).

For educators, a starting point in thinking about genuine educational reform isto recognise that we do have choices in the way we structure the micro-interactions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 23:

42 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Diversity in Education 113

in our classrooms. While we operate under many constraints, we do determine forourselves the social and educational goals we want to achieve with our pupils. Weare responsible for the role definitions we adopt in relation to culturally diversepupils and communities. We have the power to define our own identities ininteraction with pupils and communities.

Within the interactional spaces where identities are negotiated, educators andpupils together can generate power that challenges structures of injustice in smallbut significant ways. Similarly, schools that succeed in bringing issues related tocultural and linguistic diversity from the periphery to the centre of their mission aremuch more likely to prepare pupils to thrive in the interdependent global societywithin which they will live. These schools will communicate to pupils and communi-ties that their access to more than one culture and language is a resource that canenrich the entire school. This form of communication in itself challenges the racismand xenophobia that are all too common in societies around the world.

Correspondence: Jim Cummins, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education ofthe University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5S IV6.

REFERENCES

AUERBACH, E.R. (1995) The politics of the ESL classroom: issues of power in pedagogical choices, in:J.W. TOLLEFSON (Ed.) Power and Inequality in Language Education, pp. 9-33 (Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press).

BIGELOW, B., CHRISTENSEN, L., KARP, S., MINER, B. & PETERSON, B. (Eds) (1994) Rethinking our

Classrooms: teaching for equity and justice (Milwaukee, WI, Rethinking Schools Ltd).CUMMINS, J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: issues in assessment and pedagogy (Clevedon,

Multilingual Matters).CUMMINS, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: education for empowerment in a diverse society (Los Angeles,

CA, Association for Bilingual Education).CUMMINS, J. & CAMERON, L. (1994) The ESL student IS the mainstream: the marginalization of diversity

in current Canadian educational debates, English Quarterly, 26(3), pp. 30-33.EVANS, E. (1978) Welsh (Cymraeg), in: C.V. JAMES (Ed.) The Older Mother Tongues of the United Kingdom

(London, Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research).FORDHAM, S. (1990) Racelessness as a factor in black students' school success: pragmatic strategy or

pyrrhic victory?, in: N.M. HIDALGO, C.L. MCDOWELL & E.V. SIDDLE (Eds) Facing Racism in Education,pp. 232-262 (Harvard Educational Review, reprint series no. 21).

FREDERICKSON, J. (Ed.) (1995) Reclaiming Our Voices: bilingual education, critical pedagogy and praxis(Ontario, CA, California Association for Bilingual Education).

FREIRE, P. (1983) Banking education, in: H. GIROUX & D. PURPEL (Eds) The Hidden Curriculum andMoral Education: deception or discovery? (Berkeley, CA, McCutcheon Publishing Corporation).

HARNEY, R. & TROPER, H. (1975) Immigrants: a portrait of urban experience 1890-1930 (Toronto, VanNostrand Rheinhold).

JALAVA, A. (1988) Nobody could see that I was a Finn, in: T. SKUTTNABB-KANGAS & J. CUMMINS (Eds)Minority Education: from shame to struggle, pp. 161-166 (Clevedon, Multilingual Matters).

LADSON-BILLINGS, G. (1995) Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy, American EducationalResearch Journal, 32, pp. 465-491.

LEWELLYN, R. (1968) How Green Was My Valley (Toronto, Signet).MCLEOD, A. (1986) Critical literacy: taking control of our own lives, Language Arts, 63(1), pp. 37-50.MORGAN, G. (1996) An investigation into the achievement of African-Caribbean pupils, Multicultural

Teaching, 14(2), pp. 37-40.NGUGI WA THIONG'O (1986) Decolonising the Mind: the politics of language in African literature (London,

James Curry).OAKES, J. (1985) Keeping Track: how schools structure inequality (New Haven, Yale Univeristy Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 23:

42 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

114 J. Cummins

OLSEN, L., CHANG, H., DE LA ROSA SALAZAR, IX, LEONG, C., MCCALL PEREZ, Z., MCCLAIN, G. &

RAFFEL, L. (1994) The Unfinished Journey: restructuring schools in a diverse society (San Francisco, CA,California Tomorrow).

REID, E. & REICH, H. (Eds) (1992) Breaking the Boundaries: migrant workers' children in the EC (Clevedon,Multilingual Matters).

SCHLESINGER, A., JR (1991) The Disuniting of America (New York, NY, W.W. Norton),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 23:

42 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014