ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION

SECOND EDITION

Encyclopedia of Language and Education

VOLUME 5: BILINGUAL EDUCATION

General EditorNancy H. Hornberger, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

Editorial Advisory BoardNeville Alexander, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Colin Baker, University of Wales, UKMarilda Cavalcanti, UNICAMP, Brazil

Caroline Clapham, University of Lancaster, UKBronwyn Davies, University of Western Sydney, Australia

Viv Edwards, University of Reading, UKFrederick Erickson, University of California at Los Angeles, USA

Joseph Lo Bianco, University of Melbourne, AustraliaLuis Enrique Lopez, University of San Simon, Bolivia

Allan Luke, Queensland University of Technology, AustraliaTove Skutnabb-Kangas, Roskilde University, Denmark

Bernard Spolsky, Bar-Ilan University, IsraelG. Richard Tucker, Carnegie Mellon University, USA

Leo van Lier, Monterey Institute of International Studies, USATerrence G. Wiley, Arizona State University, USA

Ruth Wodak, University of Vienna, AustriaAna Celia Zentella, University of California at San Diego, USA

The volume titles of this encyclopedia are listed at the end of this volume.

Encyclopedia of Language and EducationVolume 5

BILINGUAL EDUCATION

Edited by

JIM CUMMINS

University of TorontoOntario Institute for Studies in Education

Canada

and

NANCY H. HORNBERGER

University of PennsylvaniaGraduate School of Education

USA

Volume Editors:Jim CumminsUniversity of TorontoDepartment of Curriculum, Teaching, LearningOntario Institute for Studies in EducationToronto, M5S 1V6Canadajcummins@oise.utoronto.ca

Nancy H. HornbergerUniversity of PennsylvaniaGraduate School of EducationPhiladelphia, PA 19104-6216USAnancyh@gse.upenn.edu

General Editor:Nancy H. HornbergerUniversity of PennsylvaniaGraduate School of EducationPhiladelphia, PA 19104-6216USAnancyh@gse.upenn.edu

Library of Congress Control Number: 2007925265

ISBN-13: 978-0-387-32875-1

The electronic version will be available under ISBN 978-0-387-30424-3The print and electronic bundle will be available under ISBN 978-0-387-35420-0

Printed on acid-free paper.

# 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part withoutthe written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC., 233Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection withreviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage andretrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodologynow known or hereafter developed is forbidden.The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks and similar terms,even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as towhether or not they are subject to proprietary rights.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

springer.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 5: BILINGUAL EDUCATION

General Editor’s Introduction ixNancy H. Hornberger

Introduction to Volume 5: Bilingual Education xiiiJim Cummins

Contributors xxv

Reviewers xxvii

Section 1: 21st Century Bilingual Education: Advancesin Understanding and Emerging Issues

1. Key Concepts in Bilingual Education: Ideological,Historical, Epistemological, and Empirical Foundations 3Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Teresa L. McCarty

2. Bilingual/Immersion Education: What the ResearchTells Us 19Stephen May

3. Bilingual Education and Socio-Political Issues 35Joseph Lo Bianco

4. Conceptualizing Biliteracy within Bilingual Programs 51Diana Schwinge

5. Teaching for Transfer: Challenging the Two SolitudesAssumption in Bilingual Education 65Jim Cummins

6. Identity, Community and Power in Bilingual Education 77Rebecca Freeman Field

7. Multicompetence Approaches to Language ProficiencyDevelopment in Multilingual Education 91Ulrike Jessner

8. Modularity in Bilingualism as an Opportunity forCross-discipline Discussion 105Norbert Francis

9. Language Rights and Bilingual Education 117Tove Skutnabb-Kangas

J. Cummins and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education,2nd Edition, Volume 5: Bilingual Education, v–vii.#2008 Springer Science+Business Media LLC.

10. American Sign Language (ASL) BilingualBicultural Education 133Anita Small and David Mason

Section 2: Illustrative Bilingual Education Programs and Policies

Africa11. Bilingual Education in Africa: An Overview 151

Margaret Akinyi Obondo

Asia12. Multilingual Education in India 165

Ajit Mohanty13. English–Chinese Bilingual Education in China 175

Liming Yu14. Bilingual Education in Singapore 191

Anne Pakir15. Bilingual Education in Central Asia 205

Stephen Bahry, Sarfaroz Niyozov and DuishonAlievich Shamatov

Europe16. Bilingual Education in Spain: Present Realities and

Future Challenges 225Ángel Huguet, David Lasagabasterand Ignasi Vila

North America17. Bilingual Education by and for American Indians,

Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians 239Teresa L. McCarty

18. Dual Language Education in Canada and the USA 253Fred Genesee and Kathryn Lindholm-Leary

Pacific Region and Australasia19. Bilingual Education in the South Pacific 267

Heather Lotherington20. Arabic-English Bilingualism in Australia 281

Ken Cruickshank

South/Central America21. Intercultural Bilingual Education Among Indigenous

Peoples in Latin America 295Luis Enrique López and Inge Sichra

22. Bilingual Education for Indigenous Communitiesin Mexico 311Rainer Enrique Hamel

vi TA B L E O F CONT EN T S

23. Enrichment Bilingual Education in South America 323Anne Marie de Mejía

Subject Index 333

Name Index 337

Tables of Contents: Volumes 1–10 343

TAB L E O F CONT EN T S vii

GENERAL EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION1

ENCYCLO P ED I A O F LANGUAGE AND EDUCAT I ON

This is one of ten volumes of the Encyclopedia of Language andEducation published by Springer. The Encyclopedia bears testimonyto the dynamism and evolution of the language and education field,as it confronts the ever-burgeoning and irrepressible linguistic diversityand ongoing pressures and expectations placed on education aroundthe world.The publication of this work charts the deepening and broadening of

the field of language and education since the 1997 publication of thefirst Encyclopedia. It also confirms the vision of David Corson, generaleditor of the first edition, who hailed the international and interdisciplin-ary significance and cohesion of the field. These trademark characteris-tics are evident in every volume and chapter of the present Encyclopedia.In the selection of topics and contributors, the Encyclopedia seeks to

reflect the depth of disciplinary knowledge, breadth of interdisciplinaryperspective, and diversity of sociogeographic experience in our field.Language socialization and language ecology have been added to theoriginal eight volume topics, reflecting these growing emphases in lan-guage education theory, research, and practice, alongside the enduringemphases on language policy, literacies, discourse, language acquisition,bilingual education, knowledge about language, language testing, andresearch methods. Throughout all the volumes, there is greater inclusionof scholarly contributions from non-English speaking and non-Westernparts of the world, providing truly global coverage of the issues in thefield. Furthermore, we have sought to integrate these voices more fullyinto the whole, rather than as special cases or international perspectivesin separate sections.This interdisciplinary and internationalizing impetus has been immea-

surably enhanced by the advice and support of the editorial advisory boardmembers, several ofwhom served as volume editors in the Encyclopedia’sfirst edition (designated here with*), and all of whom I acknowledgehere with gratitude: Neville Alexander (South Africa), Colin Baker(Wales), Marilda Cavalcanti (Brazil), Caroline Clapham* (Britain),

1 This introduction is based on, and takes inspiration from, David Corson’s generaleditor’s Introduction to the First Edition (Kluwer, 1997).

J. Cummins and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education,2nd Edition, Volume 5: Bilingual Education, ix–xi.#2008 Springer Science+Business Media LLC.

NANCY H . HORNBERGER

Bronwyn Davies* (Australia), Viv Edwards* (Britain), Frederick Erick-son (USA), Joseph Lo Bianco (Australia), Luis Enrique Lopez (Boliviaand Peru), Allan Luke (Singapore and Australia), Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (Denmark), Bernard Spolsky (Israel), G. Richard Tucker*(USA), Leo van Lier* (USA), Terrence G. Wiley (USA), Ruth Wodak*(Austria), and Ana Celia Zentella (USA).In conceptualizing an encyclopedic approach to a field, there is

always the challenge of the hierarchical structure of themes, topics,and subjects to be covered. In this Encyclopedia of Language andEducation, the stated topics in each volume’s table of contents are com-plemented by several cross-cutting thematic strands recurring acrossthe volumes, including the classroom/pedagogic side of language andeducation; issues of identity in language and education; language ideol-ogy and education; computer technology and language education; andlanguage rights in relation to education.The volume editors’ disciplinary and interdisciplinary academic inter-

ests and their international areas of expertise also reflect the depth andbreadth of the language and education field. As principal volume editorfor Volume 1, Stephen May brings academic interests in the sociologyof language and language education policy, arising from his work inBritain, North America, and New Zealand. For Volume 2, Brian Streetapproaches language and education as social and cultural anthropologistand critical literacy theorist, drawing on his work in Iran, Britain, andaround the world. For Volume 3, Marilyn Martin-Jones and Anne-Mariede Mejia bring combined perspectives as applied and educational lin-guists, working primarily in Britain and Latin America, respectively. ForVolume 4, Nelleke Van Deusen-Scholl has academic interests in linguis-tics and sociolinguistics, and has worked primarily in the Netherlandsand the USA. Jim Cummins, principal volume editor for Volume 5 ofboth the first and second editions of the Encyclopedia, has interests inthe psychology of language, critical applied linguistics, and languagepolicy, informed by his work in Canada, the USA, and internationally.For Volume 6, Jasone Cenoz has academic interests in applied linguis-tics and language acquisition, drawing from her work in the BasqueCountry, Spain, and Europe. Elana Shohamy, principal volume editorfor Volume 7, approaches language and education as an applied linguistwith interests in critical language policy, language testing and measure-ment, and her own work based primarily in Israel and the USA. ForVolume 8, Patricia Duff has interests in applied linguistics and socio-linguistics, and has worked primarily in North America, East Asia,and Central Europe. Volume editors for Volume 9, Angela Creese andPeter Martin, draw on their academic interests in educational linguisticsand linguistic ethnography, and their research in Britain and SoutheastAsia. And for Volume 10, Kendall A. King has academic interests in

x NANCY H . HORNBERGER

sociolinguistics and educational linguistics, with work in Ecuador,Sweden, and the USA. Francis Hult, editorial assistant for the Encyclo-pedia, has academic interests in educational and applied linguistics andeducational language policy, and has worked in Sweden and the USA.Finally, as general editor, I have interests in anthropological linguistics,educational linguistics, and language policy, with work in Latin America,the USA, and internationally. Beyond our specific academic interests, allof us editors, and the contributors to the Encyclopedia, share a commit-ment to the practice and theory of education, critically informed byresearch and strategically directed toward addressing unsound or unjustlanguage education policies and practices wherever they are found.Each of the ten volumes presents core information and is international

in scope, as well as diverse in the populations it covers. Each volumeaddresses a single subject area and provides 23–30 state-of-the-artchapters of the literature on that subject. Together, the chapters aim tocomprehensively cover the subject. The volumes, edited by internationalexperts in their respective topics, were designed and developed in closecollaboration with the general editor of the Encyclopedia, who is aco-editor of each volume as well as general editor of the whole work.Each chapter is written by one or more experts on the topic, consists of

about 4,000 words of text, and generally follows a similar structure. Alist of references to key works supplements the authoritative informationthat the chapter contains. Many contributors survey early developments,major contributions, work in progress, problems and difficulties, andfuture directions. The aim of the chapters, and of the Encyclopedia asa whole, is to give readers access to the international literature andresearch on the broad diversity of topics that make up the field.The Encyclopedia is a necessary reference set for every university

and college library in the world that serves a faculty or school of edu-cation. The encyclopedia aims to speak to a prospective readership thatis multinational, and to do so as unambiguously as possible. Becauseeach book-size volume deals with a discrete and important subject inlanguage and education, these state-of-the-art volumes also offer highlyauthoritative course textbooks in the areas suggested by their titles.The scholars contributing to the Encyclopedia hail from all continents

of our globe and from 41 countries; they represent a great diversity oflinguistic, cultural, and disciplinary traditions. For all that, what ismost impressive about the contributions gathered here is the unity ofpurpose and outlook they express with regard to the central roleof language as both vehicle and mediator of educational processesand to the need for continued and deepening research into the limitsand possibilities that implies.

Nancy H. Hornberger

G EN ERAL ED I TOR ’ S I N T RODUCT I ON xi

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 5: BILINGUALEDUCATION

The term bilingual education refers to the use of two (or more) lan-guages of instruction at some point in a student’s school career. Thelanguages are used to teach subject matter content rather than justthe language itself. This apparently simple description entails consider-able complexity deriving from a multitude of sociopolitical, sociolin-guistic, psychological, economic, administrative, and instructionalfactors. Thus, the goals, implementation, and outcomes of bilingualeducation programs can be analyzed from a wide range of disciplinaryperspectives.Bilingual education can be traced back to Greek and Roman times

and currently a large majority of countries throughout the world offersome form of bilingual education either in public or private schoolsettings. Formal academic research has been conducted on bilingualismand bilingual education since the 1920s and a voluminous aca-demic literature has accumulated on these topics. Since the publicationof the first edition of the Encyclopedia of Language and Educationin 1997, the psychoeducational research on bilingual education hasbeen synthesized and evaluated by several independent researchteams (e.g., August and Shanahan, 2006; Cummins, 2001; Genesee,Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, and Christian, 2006) and considerable con-fidence can be placed in some general conclusions about the outcomesof bilingual education. However, controversy surrounding bilingualeducation continues unabated in a number of countries.To take just one example, the level of antipathy towards bilingual edu-

cation in the USA over a 25-year period is reflected in the views ofprominent politicians and social commentators. President Reagan charac-terized bilingual education in 1981 as “absolutely wrong and againstAmerican concepts.” Ten years later, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.opined that “bilingualism shuts doors” and “monolingual education opensdoors to the larger world” (see Cummins, 2001). In early 2007, formerSpeaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, characterizedbilingual education as “stunningly destructive” and argued that Americancivilization will “decay” unless the government declares English thenation’s official language.These conclusions are contradicted by the outcomes of all recent

research reviews on the effects of bilingual education, including the

J. Cummins and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education,2nd Edition, Volume 5: Bilingual Education, xiii–xxiii.#2008 Springer Science+Business Media LLC.

J I M CUMM IN S

August and Shanahan volume that reported the findings of the NationalLiteracy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth set up bythe US government to evaluate the scientific evidence on this topic.The oppositional hyperbole clearly reflects the sociopolitical and ideo-logical dimensions of bilingual education rather than its educationaloutcomes. The use of a language as a medium of instruction in state-funded school systems confers recognition and status on that languageand its speakers. Consequently, bilingual education is not simply a polit-ically neutral instructional phenomenon but rather is implicated innational and international competition between groups for material andsymbolic resources.Bilingual programs are usually minimally controversial when they

are implemented to serve the interests of dominant groups in thesociety. In Canada, for example, little controversy exists in relationeither to French immersion programs intended to support anglophonestudents in learning French or French language programs intended tohelp minority francophone students outside of Quebec maintainFrench. These programs serve the interests of the two official languagegroups. However, only in the province of Alberta and the territory ofNunavut in the Arctic region has there been widespread implementa-tion of bilingual programs involving languages other than Englishand French. Similarly, in Europe, there have been very few bilingualprograms set up to serve migrant populations in comparison to thosethat teach the languages of national minorities whose status has beenformally recognized within the society.Thus, the controversy in the USA can be seen in the context of

the fact that it is one of the few countries in the world that has imple-mented bilingual education on a reasonably large scale for minoritygroups that do not have legally recognized status as national minoritiesor as official language groups.

R E S EARCH FOUNDAT I ON

As noted above, there is considerable consensus among applied lin-guists regarding the outcomes of bilingual programs. The research onbilingual education supports the following conclusions:1. Bilingual programs for minority and majority language stu-

dents have been successfully implemented in countries aroundthe world. As documented in the reviews in this volume and itsfirst edition predecessor, students educated for part of the daythrough a minority language do not suffer adverse consequencesin the development of academic skills in the majority language.As one example, there are more than 300,000 English-backgroundstudents in various forms of French–English bilingual programs

xiv J I M CUMM IN S

i n C ana da (s ee G ene see and Li ndhol m-Le ary, Dua l Lan guageEduc at ion in C ana da a nd t he U SA , Vol um e 5).

2. The development of literacy in two languages entails linguis-tic and cognitive advantages for bilingual students. There arehundreds of research studies carried out since the early 1960sthat report significant advantages for bilingual students on a vari-ety of metalinguistic and cognitive tasks (reviewed in Cummins,2001). Bilingual students get more practice in learning languageresulting in greater attentional control and higher levels of meta-linguistic awareness.

3. Significant positive relationships exist between the develop-ment of academic skills in first and second languages (L1and L2). This is true even for languages that are dissimilar (e.g.,Spanish and Basque; English and Chinese; Dutch and Turkish).These cross-lingual relationships provide evidence for a commonunderlying proficiency (or what Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,Saunders, and Christian (2005) call a cross-linguistic reservoir ofabilities) that permits transfer of academic and conceptual knowl-edge across languages. This transfer of skills and knowledgeexplains why spending instructional time through a minoritylanguage entails no adverse consequences for the development ofthe majority language.

4. The most successful bilingual programs are those that aim todevelop bilingualism and biliteracy. Transitional bilingual pro-grams provide some L1 instruction as a short-term bridge tomainstream instruction in the dominant language. However, theseshort-term programs are less successful, in general, than pro-grams that continue to promote both L1 and L2 literacy through-out elementary school. Particularly successful (in the USA) aredual-language programs that serve majority-language dominantstudents in the same classes as minority students with each groupacting as linguistic models for the other.

5. Bilingual education for minority students is, in many situa-tions, more effective in developing L2 literacy skills than mono-lingual education in the dominant language but it is not, byitself, a panacea for underachievement. Francis, Lesaux, andAugust (2006), writing in the August and Shanahan volume, sum-marize the outcomes of the bilingual programs they reviewed:

In summary, there is no indication that bilingual instruc-tion impedes academic achievement in either the nativelanguage or English, whether for language-minoritystudents, students receiving heritage language instruc-tion, or those enrolled in French immersion programs.Where differences were observed, on average they

I N T RODUCT I ON xv

favored the students in a bilingual program. The meta-analytic results clearly suggest a positive effect for bilin-gual instruction that is moderate in size. (2006, p. 397)

However, underachievement derives from many sources and simplyproviding some first language instruction will not, by itself, transformstudents’ educational experience. As outlined in many of the papers inthis volume, effective instruction will affirm student identities and buildon the cultural and linguistic knowledge they bring to the classroom.

OVERV I EW

The first ten chapters analyze a range of conceptual issues in bilingualeducation while the remaining chapters focus on bilingual programs inspecific geographical contexts. McCarty and Skutnabb-Kangas initiallyclarify the terminology, distinctions, and definitions that clutter thebilingual education landscape. They pay particular attention to theideological underpinnings of terminology evident in the ways in whichissues and debates are framed.May elaborates on some of the relevant types of bilingual education

and reviews some of the major research studies supporting the positiveoutcomes of L1 instruction for minority language students. He cau-tions, however, that research results cannot be interpreted in avacuum—the social and educational context is always relevant indetermining what types of program will be appropriate and successful.Lo Bianco reviews some of the early findings that suggested positive

cognitive and linguistic effects of bilingualism and which opened thefield of discourse to the implementation of enrichment, as opposed tocompensatory, bilingual education. He then goes on to examine the inter-section of sociopolitical and educational factors in the ways bilingualprograms have been implemented in the USA, Australia, and Sri Lanka.Schwinge focuses on the development of biliteracy within bilingual

programs. She adopts Hornberger’s (1990, p. 213) definition of biliteracyas “any and all instances in which communication occurs in two (ormore) languages in or around writing.” The research she reviews is pri-marily ethnographic in nature, some of which is framed explicitly withinHornberger’s (2003) Continua of Biliteracy framework. Schwinge’sreview emphasizes the importance of students’ linguistic and culturalfunds of knowledge as a basis for learning, the reality of transfer acrosslanguages as revealed by qualitative research, and instructionalapproaches that have shown promise in promoting biliteracy.Cummins highlights the fact that monolingual instructional assump-

tions continue to dominate pedagogy in bilingual programs. Theseassumptions are reflected in the rigid separation of languages in many

xvi J I M CUMM IN S

bilingual programs and the rejection of translation as a potentialinstructional strategy (e.g., in the writing and web-publication ofdual-language books by students). These assumptions have resultedin minimal teaching for transfer (L1 to L2, L2 to L1) within bilingualprograms and lost opportunities to optimize both language accomplish-ments and academic achievement.Freeman’s paper examines how broader societal power relations

among local and global communities shape the forms of bilingual educa-tion that are implemented and the teacher–student interactions that occurwithin bilingual programs. The historical and current power relationsoperating in any particular society can affect how the term bilingualeducation is perceived by different groups. In New Zealand, for example,the term has negative connotations for Maori educators and communitiesattempting to revitalize the Maori language through Maori-mediumschooling. In this context, bilingual education implies a dilution ofthe emphasis onMaori language and culture. Freeman points out that stu-dent identities are constantly being negotiated and shaped within allforms of schooling and thus different forms of bilingual or monolingualinstruction are never neutral with respect to the intersection of student/community identities and societal power relations.Jessner reviews recent challenges to the implicit conceptualization of

the bilingual as a “double monolingual.” The term multicompetencehas been adopted to highlight the fact that L2 users have a differentmental structure than monolinguals. The dynamic model of multilingu-alism described by Jessner goes beyond just positing an overlap orinterdependence between L1 and L2; rather a complete metamorphosisof the cognitive systems of the bi/multilingual individual is involved.This approach adopts a holistic view of L2/L3 users, and argues forthe establishment of multilingual rather than monolingual norms withinsociolinguistic and educational contexts. This orientation has importantimplications for both instruction and assessment of L2 users.Francis presents an alternative approach to conceptualizing the cog-

nitive structure of bi/multilingual individuals. He points out that modu-lar approaches to the study of bilingualism attempt to analyze thecognitive components that make up a person’s knowledge of twolanguages and his or her ability to use them. To what extent are thesecomponents autonomous domains and in what ways do they interactwith other components? Francis discusses the possibility that theremay be degrees of modularity in which some aspects of language devel-opment might unfold in a highly modular or “closed” way while othersmay be more interactive or open-ended. He relates this discussion to thenotion of a cross-linguistic common underlying proficiency as well asto a number of practical issues in instruction and testing.

I N T RODUCT I ON xvii

Skutnabb-Kangas analyzes the intersections between language rightsand bilingual education. Linguistic minorities are protected by specificlanguage rights in certain countries and, in addition, all are providedwith some general protections under various United Nations chartersand other conventions. However, there are relatively few bindingpositive rights to mother-tongue medium education or bilingual educa-tion in present international law. Most language-related human rightsare negative rights designed to promote equality by prohibitingdiscrimination on the basis of language. Skutnabb-Kangas suggeststhat the resistance by national governments to the implementation ofmaintenance-oriented mother-tongue education derives from the fact thatthese programs are capable of reproducing minorities as minorities—inother words, they operate to counteract assimilation and the disappear-ance of the minority group as a distinct entity.The final chapter of this initial section illustrates the struggle for lin-

guistic human rights by means of a case study of the implementation ofbilingual-bicultural education for Deaf students in Ontario, Canada.Small and Mason point out that the Education Act in Ontario allowsthe use of American Sign Language (ASL) and Langue des signesquebecois (LSQ) as languages of instruction in schools. However, thelegislation is only permissive insofar as it does not require schoolsserving Deaf students to use ASL nor does it require teachers to haveASL proficiency. The Deaf community has mobilized to pressure theprovince to strengthen ASL regulations and also to ensure that all Deafchildren have the opportunity to gain access to a strong first language.Currently, children who receive a cochlear implant are effectivelyprohibited from learning ASL by provincial regulations despite the factthat there is no research evidence to support this policy. In fact, theresearch clearly shows that Deaf children who develop strong ASLproficiency perform better in English literacy skills.The remaining chapters focus on illustrative bilingual education pro-

grams and policies in different regions of the world. Obondo reviewsthe situation in several post-colonial African countries where policy-makers have struggled with the decision of whether to continue withprograms that use the colonial language as the medium of instruction inschools or to implement initial mother tongue or bilingual instruction.Research data suggest that significantly better outcomes are attained inmother-tongue medium programs. However, the sociolinguistic com-plexities of the relationships between local, regional, and national lan-guages in many countries create challenges for implementing mothertongue programs.Similar multilingual complexities exist in India. Mohanty traces the

development of multilingual education from the inception of the“three-language policy” in 1957. This policy envisaged a regional

xviii J I M CUMM IN S

language or mother tongue as the language of instruction for the firstfive years of schooling followed by Hindi (in non-Hindi areas) oranother Indian language (in Hindi areas) from the sixth to the eighthyear of schooling, with English taking over as the language of instruc-tion after that point. This policy has evolved such that currently themajority language of each state has become the first language and me-dium of instruction in state-sponsored schools with English as the mostcommon second language subject followed by either Hindi or Sanskritas a third language subject. Mohanty concludes that application of thethree-language formula has been erratic and that there has been a lackof coherent language planning in the Indian context.Yu focuses on recent developments in English–Chinese bilingual

education in the Chinese context. Programs have been implementedat the university level and in both public and private schools. At theuniversity level the goal of English–Chinese bilingual education is tomeet the challenge of economic globalization and technological expan-sion by ensuring that Chinese scholars have access to scientific devel-opments which are predominantly published and discussed in Englishat this point in time. Yu points out that English–Chinese bilingual edu-cation is at a very early stage in the Chinese context. For example, thebilingual programs in secondary and primary schools in Shanghai donot have their own curriculum and the teachers who are teachingthrough English must adapt the regular Chinese-medium curriculum.No guidelines are available for how to improve English proficiencywithin the context of a bilingual program and thus teachers involvedin these recent innovations are faced with multiple challenges.Pakir provides a historical overview of the development of bilingual

education policy in Singapore and evaluates its outcomes in light of inter-national academic comparisons. English is the major medium of instruc-tion in all Singapore schools but the mother tongues of the major groups(Chinese, Malay, Tamil) are also taught. In general, students from themajor language backgrounds in Singapore have performed well in inter-national comparisons, not only in mathematics and science but also onmeasures of English literacy where their scores are at similar levels toseveral countries where English is the first language of students and themedium of instruction in school (e.g., New Zealand, Scotland).The chapter by Bahry, Niyozov, and Shamatov reviews the complex

sociolinguistic situation in the Central Asian independent states ofKazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistanall of which were republics of the USSR until 1991. The chapter tracesdevelopments in the types of schooling provided in Central Asia andoutlines current and future challenges for bilingual education as anoption for the education systems of this region. Despite the multilin-gualism that characterizes the entire region, there are relatively few

I N T RODUCT I ON xix

examples of genuine bilingual education at this point in time. Schoolsteaching through the major language of the country co-exist withRussian-medium schools and schools operating through the mediumsof various minority languages in regions where those languages arespoken. Other languages (e.g., the majority language, Russian) are typi-cally taught as subjects rather than being used as mediums of instruc-tion. The authors point out that these newly independent countries areengaged in complex identity discourses and are likely to experimentcautiously with bilingual programs that might be seen as potentially dis-rupting a delicate balance in relations between social and ethnic groups.Within the European context, support for “lesser used languages”

within the European Union and the demise of autocratic regimes(e.g., Franco in Spain) have resulted in a variety of bilingual educationprograms for the languages of groups recognized as national minorities.Huguet, Lasagabaster, and Vila discuss the evolution of bilingual andimmersion programs in the autonomous Spanish regions of Catalonia,the Basque Country, Aragon, and Asturias. Extensive research in theBasque Country and Catalonia, and to a lesser extent in other regions,has established the effectiveness of bilingual/immersion programs indeveloping and reinforcing students’ abilities in the minority languageat no cost to their proficiency in Spanish. As in other parts of Europeand North America, however, policy-makers are also faced with thechallenge of integrating significant numbers of migrant students intothe school system and ensuring that they also have the opportunity toacquire the languages of the society.In the North American context, McCarty reviews the shift that has

taken place in the goals of bilingual programs involving indigenouspopulations. Whereas previously bilingual programs were seen as help-ing to maintain the indigenous language while supporting students indeveloping strong academic English skills, the rapid decline in trans-mission of indigenous languages in the home has given rise to programsthat aim to revitalize and reclaim indigenous languages. Thus, immer-sion programs involving various languages have been established,often in opposition to restrictive state legislation that mandatesEnglish-only instruction. For example, the Navajo immersion programin Window Rock, Arizona, has been engaged in a protracted fightwith the Arizona State Department of Education which has attemptedto shut it down by withholding funds. Evaluations of indigenous lan-guage programs tend to show highly positive outcomes (on Englishtests) in comparison to monolingual English programs. McCarty notesan increase in activism and confidence among indigenous communitiesin demanding control over their educational futures.Genesee and Lindholm-Leary review the outcomes of dual-language

education (DLE) in the USA and Canada. They define DLE as

xx J I M CUMM IN S

schooling at the elementary and/or secondary levels in which Englishalong with another language are used for at least 50% of academicinstruction during at least one school year. In other words, the minoritylanguage must be used for at least 50% of the time for at least oneschool year but, in other years, the ratio of English to minoritylanguage might be 60:40 or 70:30. This definition also allows for theminority language to be used for 90% or more of the time at some stageof the program. Clearly DLE encompasses many forms of bilingualprogram for minority groups as well as immersion programs for major-ity groups. The authors note the convergence in findings across thesedifferent programs types and related sociolinguistic contexts. Specifi-cally, within DLE, minority languages can be used as mediums ofinstruction at no long-term cost to students’ proficiency in the majoritylanguage.The two chapters that focus on the Pacific region and Australasia

address a wide range of topics and issues. Lotherington notes that thepredominant program model in the South Pacific is transitional bilin-gual education which aims to develop functional proficiency in the sec-ond (colonial) language within primary school education. There is atrend in some Polynesian countries away from a purely transitionalmodel towards maintenance bilingual but submersion programs con-ducted through the former colonial language predominate in polyglotMelanesian societies. Among the barriers to the implementation ofmore widespread bilingual education are the lack of materials in vernac-ular languages, the limited support available to strengthen instruction ofboth the vernacular and international languages, and ambivalentattitudes towards the value of vernacular languages.Cruikshank focuses on the sociolinguistic situation of the Arabic-

speaking community in Australia. He notes that the teaching of Arabicand other community languages was marked by “a dramatic flourishingin the early 1980s, some consolidation and then a period of neglect inthe last decade.” Currently, Arabic is taught in community schools, inprimary and secondary schools and in tertiary institutions. However,relatively few students continue to study Arabic throughout secondaryschool. Technological changes have exerted a significant impact onpatterns of language use in the home. Many families have access to24 hour Arabic channels such as Al Jazeera through cable and satellitetelevision, and children and most teenagers watch videos and varioustypes of television programs in Arabic regularly. There is also regularcommunication with family members in the countries of origin. Thus,transmission of the oral language is relatively strong despite the limitedliteracy abilities that most second generation students attain.The final three chapters address the implementation of bilingual

education in Latin American countries. López and Sichra note that

I N T RODUCT I ON xxi

indigenous bilingual education dates from the early 1900s and initiallywas conceived as an instrument of assimilation. However, large-scaletransitional bilingual projects carried out in countries such as Mexico,Peru, Guatemala, Bolivia, and Ecuador showed positive outcomesand reassured communities that use of the indigenous languagewas feasible and would not adversely affect students’ development ofSpanish proficiency. This growth in legitimacy associated with indig-enous language use in educational contexts resulted in a gradual evolu-tion in the late twentieth century towards more maintenance modelsdesigned to help develop the indigenous language as well as Spanish.Indigenous organizations and leaders have assumed a much moreprominent role in the planning and implementation of bilingual educa-tion and these programs are now seen as playing an important role inrecuperating indigenous views and voices.Hamel elaborates on this general picture with a detailed examination

of indigenous education in Mexico. Although the focus has been tradi-tionally on using the indigenous language as a means to better developSpanish skills, a shift similar to that noted by López and Sichra isevident in some contexts. For example, in 1995 the P’urhepecha(Tarascan) teachers from two bilingual elementary schools in Michoacán,in the central Highlands of Mexico, changed the curriculum so thatall subject matter including literacy and mathematics was taughtin P’urhepecha, the children’s L1. Teachers had to create their ownmaterials and develop a writing system. Comparative research severalyears later reported that students who had acquired literacy in their L1achieved significantly higher scores in both languages than those whowere taught reading and writing in Spanish.In the final paper, de Mejia describes developments in enrichment

bilingual education in South America. Most of these programs havebeen implemented in private schools with the same kinds of positiveoutcomes documented elsewhere. She notes that there have recentlybeen attempts to connect the academic discourse on bilingual educationacross the majority/minority divide where the principles underlyingprograms for indigenous communities, Creole speakers, and Deafcommunities are linked to those involving majority language speakers.De Mejia argues that there are significant areas of convergence betweenmajority- and minority-oriented bilingual programs in relation to themaintenance of cultural identity, the status and development of theL1, and the importance of contextual factors in the design and modifi-cation of all bilingual education programs.In conclusion, the chapters in this volume complement those in

the corresponding volume of the first edition of the Encyclopedia inshowing that bilingual education programs are expanding in contexts

xxii J I M CUMM IN S

around the globe, are highly successful in developing both L1 and L2proficiency when implemented appropriately, and are always nestedin contexts that are ideologically and sociopolitically complex.

Jim Cummins

REFERENCES

August, D. and Shanahan, T. (eds.): 2006, Developing Literacy in Second-languageLearners, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.

Cummins, J.: 2001, Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a DiverseSociety, (second edition), California Association for Bilingual Education, LosAngeles.

Francis, D., Lesaux, N., and August, D.: 2006, ‘Language of instruction’, in D. Augustand T. Shanahan (eds.), Developing Literacy in Second-language Learners,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, 365–413.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., and Christian, D. (eds.): 2006, Edu-cating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence, CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.

Hornberger, N.H.: 1990, ‘Creating successful learning contexts for bilingual literacy’,Teachers College Record 92(2), 212–229.

Hornberger, N.H. (ed.): 2003, Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework forEducational Policy, Research and Practice in Multilingual Settings, MultilingualMatters, Clevedon, UK.

I N T RODUCT I ON xxiii

CONTRIBUTORS

VOLUME 5: BILINGUALEDUCATION

Stephen BahryUniversity of Toronto, OntarioInstitute for Studies in Education,Toronto, Canada

Joseph Lo BiancoThe University of Melbourne, Languageand Literacy Education, Victoria, Australia

Ken CruickshankUniversity of Wollongong, Australia

Jim CumminsUniversity of Toronto, Ontario Institute forStudies in Education, Toronto, Canada

Anne-Marie de MejíaUniversidad de los Andes, Centro deInvestigación y Formación en Educatión,Bogotá, Colombia

Rebecca Freeman FieldCaslon Publishing, Language EducationDivision, Philadelphia, USA

Norbert FrancisNorthern Arizona University, College ofEducation, Flagstaff, USA

Fred GeneseeMcGill University, Department ofPsychology, Montreal, Canada

Rainer Enrique HamelUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana,Mexico City

Ángel HuguetUniversity of Lleida, Faculty ofEducational Sciences, Lleida, Spain

Ulrike JessnerUniversity of Innsbruck, EnglishDepartment, Innsbruck, Austria

David LasagabasterUniversity of the Basque Country,Faculty of Philology,Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

Kathryn Lindholm-LearySan José State University, Child &Adolescent Development Department,San José, USA

Heather LotheringtonYork University, Faculty of Education,Toronto, Canada

Luis Enrique LópezUniversidad Mayor de San Simón,PROEIB Andes—Program of ProfessionalDevelopment in Intercultural BilingualEducation for the Andean Countries,Cochabamba, Bolivia

David MasonYork University, Toronto, Canada

Stephen MayUniversity of Waikato, School of Education,Hamilton, New Zealand

Teresa L. McCartyArizona State University, College ofEducation, Tempe, USA

Ajit MohantyJawaharlal Nehru University,Zakir Husain Centre for EducationalStudies, New Delhi, India

Sarfaroz NiyozovUniversity of Toronto, Department ofCurriculum, Teaching and Learning,Toronto, Canada

Margaret Akinyi ObondoRinkeby Institute of MultilingualResearch, Stockholm Institute ofEducation, Stockholm,Spånga, Sweden

Anne PakirNational University of Singapore,Department of English Language andLiterature, Singapore

J. Cummins and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education,2nd Edition, Volume 5: Bilingual Education, xxv–xxvi.#2008 Springer Science+Business Media LLC.

Diana SchwingeAdelphi University,Department of Education Studies,Garden City, USA

Duishon ShamatovAga Khan University, Institute ofEducational Development,Karachi, Pakistan

Inge SichraUniversidad Mayor de San Simón,PROEIB Andes—Program of ProfessionalDevelopment in Intercultural BilingualEducation for the Andean Countries,Cochabamba, Bolivia

Tove Skutnabb-KangasUniversity of Roskilde, Department ofLanguages and Culture, Roskilde, Denmark

Anita SmallCanadian Cultural Society of the Deaf,Toronto, Canada

Ignasi VilaUniversity of Girona, Faculty of Educationand Psychology, Catalonia, Spain

Liming YuShanghai Jiaotong University, ForeignLanguages School, Shanghai, China

xxvi C ONTR I BU TOR S

REVIEWERS

VOLUME 5: BILINGUAL EDUCATION

Colin BakerDonna ChristianVivian CookJim CumminsViv EdwardsMark Fettes

Nancy H. HornbergerFrancis M. HultKendall KingSandra KippEvelyn Man

Francis MangubhaiVaidehi Ramanathan

Jon ReyhnerEllen Skilton-Sylvester

Susan SpezziniBrian V. StreetRuth Wong