In most immigrant-receiving societies, an important question, both for researchers and policy makers, has been the weighing of the relative efficiency of different formulas in the learning of the host language by immigrant students, especially the potential impact of specific services on social integration and the role of heritage languages.
Purpose Objectives Research Question Focus of Study
This article tries to go beyond the most conspicuous elements of these controversies to look at the variety of practices that different societies have adopted. Given the questions just raised, a specific focus is given to the degree to which such endeavors follow an immersion or specific services formula on the one hand, and to the role that they grant to heritage languages on the other. Five major immigrant-receiving societies have been chosen, and their choices regarding either issue are contrasted: Britain, two Canadian provinces (Quebec and Ontario), the United States, and Belgium (Flemish Brussels).
Research Design
To ascertain the extent to which transferable conclusions about best models and practices can be drawn from international comparison, evaluation research on the strengths and weaknesses of each of these formulas is reviewed, with a focus on their short and middle-term linguistic outcomes given the paucity of data on their long-term educational and social outcomes. In conclusion, we identify the minimum threshold of consensus regarding the policy and program conditions that foster a proper mastery of the host language by immigrant students without jeopardizing other dimensions of their school or social integration.
Conclusion/Recommendations
Three recommendations for policy makers can be drawn. First, flexibility and diversity of formula, both regarding the specific-services-versus-quick-integration dilemma and the place of heritage languages, seems a much better option than the one-size-fits-all model given the great variety found within the immigrant student population. Second, regardless of the model adopted, a fundamental winning condition lies in the recognition that the linguistic integration of newcomers is a collective responsibility and thus necessitates the establishment of close links between specific services, whenever they exist, and regular classrooms. Finally, research points to the necessity of focusing attention on schools and classrooms, especially pedagogical practices and teaching strategies, instead of being obsessed with models and formula.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonT., & BoyerM. (1970). Bilingual schooling in the United States. Austin, TX: Educational Development Laboratory.
2.
AnisefP., BlaisJ.-G., Mc AndrewM., UngerleiderC., & SweetR. (2004). Academic performance and educational mobility of youth of immigrant origin in Canada: What can we learn from provincial data banks?Ottawa, Ontario: Rapport de recherche. Immigration et métropoles/CIC.
3.
ArtigalJ. P. (1991). The Catalan Immersion Program: A European point of view. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4.
BlairM., & BourneJ. (1998). Making the difference: Teaching and learning strategies in successful multiethnic schools (Research Report No. 59). London: The Open University, Department for Education and Employment.
5.
BourneJ., & McPakeJ. (1991). Partnership teaching: Cooperative teaching strategies for language support in multilingual classrooms. London: HMSO.
6.
BoussettaH. (2000). Intégration des immigrés et division communautaire: l'exemple de la Belgique [Integration of immigrants and intercommunity divisions: The case of Belgium]. In Mc AndrewM. & GagnonF. (Eds.), Relations ethniques et éducation dans les sociétés divisées: Québec, Irlande du Nord, Catalogne et Belgique (pp. 59–85). Montreal, Quebec/ Paris: L'Harmattan.
7.
ByramM. (1990a). Return to the home country: The “necessary dream” in ethnic identity. In ByramM. & LemanJ. (Eds.), Bicultural and trilingual education: The Foyer model in Brussels (pp. 77–94). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
8.
ByramM. (1990b). Teachers and pupils: The significance of cultural identity. In ByramM. & LemanJ. (Eds.), Bicultural and trilingual education: The Foyer model in Brussels (pp. 126–135). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
9.
ByramM., & LemanJ. (1990). Bilingual and trilingual education: The Foyer model in Brussels. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
10.
California State Board of Education. (1998). California State Board of Education: Title 5. California Code of Regulation, Division 1, Chapter 11, Sub-Chapter 4–English Language Learner Education.
11.
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2005a). The effect of sheltered instruction on the achievement of limited English proficient students. Project Description. Funded by Office of Educational Research on Improvement. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.cal.org/crede
12.
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2005b). Two-way immersion education. Project Description. Funders: Center for Research on Education Diversity and Excellence, National Institute for Education of At-Risk Students, Office of Educational Research on Improvement. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.cal.org/crede/twoway.htm
13.
Commission for Racial Equality. (1986). Teaching English as a second language (Report of a formal investigation). London: Calderdale Local Education Authority.
14.
Communauté Française de Belgique. (1997). Programme LCO. Charte du partenariat 1997-2000. Scolarisation en milieu multiculturel [The Language and Culture of Origin Program: The Partnership Charter 1997–2000. Education in a multiethnic setting]. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
15.
CrawfordJ. (1997a). The campaign against proposition 227: A post-mortem.Bilingual Research Journal, 21(1), 1–29.
16.
CrawfordJ. (1997b). Best evidence research foundation of the Bilingual Education Act. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
17.
CrawfordJ. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice. Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services.
18.
CumminsJ. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education.
19.
CurtisL., & TaborekE. (1994). Presentation by TESL Ontario to the Royal Commission on Learning.Contact, 19(3), 23–26.
20.
Department for Education and Skills. (2002, September). The National Literacy Strategy: Supporting pupils learning English as an additional language. London: Author.
21.
Department for Education and Skills. (2003, March). Aiming high: Raising the achievement of minority ethnic pupils. London: Author.
22.
Department for Education and Skills. (2005, April). Aiming high: Guidance on the assessment evaluation of pupils learning English as an additional language. London: Author.
23.
DolsonD. T., & MeyerJ. (1992). Longitudinal study of three program models for language minority students: A critical examination of reported findings.Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 105–157.
24.
English for the Children. (1997a). The 1997–1998 California English for the Children Initiative. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://www.onenation.org/
25.
English for the Children. (1997b). Proposition 227. The 1997–1998 California English for the Children Initiative. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://www.onenation.org/
26.
FarrellJ. P. (1979). The necessity of comparisons in the study of education: The salience of science and the problem of comparability.Comparative Education Review, 23, 3–16.
27.
FishmanJ. (1976). Bilingual education: An international sociological perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
28.
GabbM. (1989). An ESL perspective for community languages in the curriculum. In GeachJ. & BroadbentJ. (Eds.), Coherence in diversity: Britain's multilingual classroom (pp. 43–51). London: CILT.
29.
GalindoR. (1997). Language wars: The ideological dimensions of the debates on bilingual education.Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2–3), 103–141.
30.
GarciaA., & MorganC. (1997). A 50 state survey of requirements for the education of language minority children. Washington, DC: Center for Equal Opportunity.
31.
GillbornD. (1995). Racism and antiracism in real schools: Theory, policy, practices. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
32.
GreeneJ. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont, CA: Thòmas Rivera Policy Center.
33.
HakutaK. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
34.
JanssensR., & Mc AndrewM. (2004). The role of schooling and the maintenance and transformation of ethnic boundaries between linguistic communities: Contrasting Quebec and Belgium.Canadian Ethnic Studies, 36(3), 61–83.
35.
JaspaertK., & LemmensG. (1990). Linguistic evaluation of Dutch as a third language. In ByramM. & LemanJ. (Eds.), Bicultural and trilingual education: The Foyer model in Brussels (pp. 30–56). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
36.
JohnsonJ., & AceraR. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high performing, high poverty urban elementary schools [Report of method to the U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Services]. Houston: Charles A. Donna Center, University of Texas at Houston.
37.
KjolsethR. (1975). Bilingual education in the U.S.: For assimilation or pluralism. In SpolskyB., (Ed.), Language education of minority children (pp. 94–121). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
38.
KrashenS. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.
LaurierM. D., BosquetM., & CampbellJ. (1999). L'enseignement des langues d'origine: un état de la situation dans différents contextes[The teaching of heritage languages: The state of the art in various contexts]. Rapport remis au ministère de l'Éducation, Direction des services aux communautés culturelles, avril.Centre de langues patrimoniales/ CEETUM, Université de Montréal.
41.
LemanJ. (1993). Les politiques d'éducation interculturelle dans les communautés française et flamande de Belgique [Intercultural education policies in the French and Fleming communities in Belgium].Recherches en éducation: théorie et pratique, 15, 33–40.
42.
Lindholm-LearyK. (2000). Bi-literacy for a global society: An IED book on dual language education. National Clearing House for Bilingual Education. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
43.
LoewelbergN., & WassB. (1997). Provision for the development of the linguistic proficiency of young immigrants in England and France: A comparative study.Comparative Education, 33, 395–409.
44.
MaisonneuveD. (1987). Le cheminement scolaire des élèves ayant séjourné en classe d'accueil [The educational progress of students who attended welcoming classes]. Montreal, Quebec: MEQ, Direction générale de la recherche et du développement.
45.
MasonD. (1995). Race and ethnicity in modern Britain. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
46.
Mc AndrewM. (2001). Immigration et diversité à l'école. Le débat québécois dans une perspective comparative [Immigration and diversity in schools: The Quebec debate in a comparative perspective]. English version. Montreal, Quebec: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.
47.
Mc AndrewM. (2004). Immigration, pluralism and education. In GagnonA. (Ed.), Quebec: State and society (2nd ed., pp. 307–328). Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.
48.
Mc AndrewM., & CicériC. (1998). Immigration, diversity and multilingual education: The Canadian example.Zeitschrift für internationale erziehungs- und socialwissenschaftliche Forschung, 15(2), 295–322.
49.
McQuillanJ., & TséL. (1996). Does research matter? An analysis of media opinion on bilingual education, 1894–1994. Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 1–27.
50.
MessierM. (1997). Les modèles de services réservés aux élèves nouveaux arrivants: une étude comparée entre Montréal et Toronto [Models of services targeting new arrival students: A comparative study between Toronto and Montreal]. Montreal, Quebec: Immigration et métropoles.
51.
Ministère de l'Éducation du Québec. (1978). Projet d'enseignement des langues d'origine (PELO) [The Heritage Language Teaching Program (HLTP): General framework of the project]. Cadre général du projet. Montreal, Quebec: Author.
52.
Ministère de l'Éducation du Québec. (1996). Le point sur les services d'accueil et de francisation de l'école publique québécoise. Pratiques actuelles et résultats des élèves [An assessment of welcoming and language teaching services in Quebecpublic schools: Current practices and students’ results]. Montreal, Quebec: Direction des services aux communautés culturelles.
53.
Ministère de l'Éducation du Québec. (1998). Une école d'avenir. Intégration scolaire et éducation interculturelle [A school for the future: Policy statement on educational integration and intercultural education]. Montreal, Quebec: Author.
54.
Ministère de l'Éducation du Québec. (2003). Écoles en action. Intégration, scolarisation et valorisation du français [Schools in action: Integration, schooling and the promotion of the French language; Videocassette]. Direction des services aux communautés culturelles. Montreal, Quebec: Author.
55.
National Foundation for Educational Research. (2005, April). Raising the achievement of bilingual learners in primary schools (Interim Report). Slough, England: Author.
56.
National Research Council. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of Limited English Proficient and Bilingual Students.
57.
North York Board of Education. (1995). Language for learning: Policy in North York Schools. North York, Ontario: Author.
58.
North York Board of Education (1996). ESL/ESD, reception, orientation, program delivery, monitoring. Document de travail pour les écoles. North York, Ontario: Development Committee.
59.
Office for Standards in Education. (1999). Raising the attainment of minority ethnic pupils, schools and LIA responses. London: HMSO.
60.
Office for Standards in Education. (2003, March). More advanced learners of English as an additional language in secondary schools and colleges. London: HMSO.
61.
Office for Standards in Education. (2005). Could they do even better? The writing of advanced bilingual learners of English at Key Stage 2: HMI survey of good practice.London: HMSO.
62.
Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1996, September). Board report. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
63.
OvandoC., & CollierV. P. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
64.
PassellJ. S. (1998, June). Undocumented immigration to the United States: Numbers, trends and characteristics. Paper presented at the conference, Managing Migration in the 21st Century: On the Politics and Economic of Illegal Immigration, Hamburg, Germany.
65.
RoosensE. (2007). First language and culture learning in light of globalization: The case of Muslims in Flanders and in the Brussels area. In Suarez-OrozcoM. (Ed.), Global understandings: Learning and education in troubled times (pp. 256–271). Berkeley: University of California Press.
66.
SammonsP., HillmanJ. & MortimoreP. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London: University of London Institute of Education.
67.
SensiD. (1995). Enquête sur les pratiques de partenariat avec les enseignants de langue et de culture d'origine [A study of partnership practices with the teachers of the heritage language and culture: An evaluation of the program]. Audit sur le programme. Liège, Belgium: Université de Liège, Faculté de psychologie et des sciences de l'éducation.
68.
SmeekensL. (1990). Structural change: From monocultural to bicultural schools. In ByramM. & LemanJ. (Eds.), Bicultural and trilingual education: The Foyer model in Brussels (pp. 136–146). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
69.
The Stanford Working Group. (1995). Federal education program for limited English proficient students: A blue-print for the second generation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University School of Education.
70.
SwannL. (1985). Education for All (Final report of the Committee of Inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minorities). London: HMSO. (CMND 9453)
71.
ThomasW., & CollierV. (2002). National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students Long-Term Academic Achievement. Santa Cruz, CA/Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education Diversity and Excellence.
72.
TopL., & de SmedtH. (2005). Zin voor Talen: taalsensibilisering en de taalportfolio in een meer talig onderwijs [Promoting languages: Language awareness and language portfolio in multilingual education]. Antwerp, Belgium: Garant.
73.
Toronto Board of Education. (1982, March). Towards a comprehensive language policy: Final report of the Work Group on Third Language Instruction. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
74.
Toronto Board of Education. (1990). ESL/ESD, Handbook of procedures for school and reception welcoming centre staff. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author.
75.
Toronto Board of Education. (1994). Supporting language learners in the mainstream classroom. Toronto, Ontario: ESL/ESD Department.
76.
TroynaD., & Siraj-BlatchfordI. (1993). Providing support or denying access? The experiences of students designated as ESL and “SN” in a multiethnic secondary school.Education Review, 45, 3–11.
77.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Model strategies in bilingual education: Professional development. Washington, DC: Author.
78.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficiency students and available educational programs and services (2000–2001 summary report). Washington, DC: Author
79.
WaldingerC. (1997). Which way LA? Immigration and ethnic changes in Southern California. California Policy Seminar Immigration Panel. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rs/more.php?id=108_0_3_0
80.
ZehlerA. M., FleischmanH. L., HopstockP. J., StephensonT. G., PendzickM., & SapruS. (2003). Descriptive study of Services to LEP students and LEP students with disability (Policy Report: Summary of Findings). Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
