Typology of bilingual schools

Bilingual education appeared in the 1960s when demographic changes urged its existence in schools on state levels. In Europe, Busch (2011) differentiates two shifts of bi- or multilingual research: the first one stemmed from shaking monolingual hegemony in ex-colonial states in the 1960s while the second one can be dated from the 1990s when an enormous flow of people was generated by the altered geopolitical situation of the European continent. In America, Hakuta  Garcia (1989) see its reasons in the migration of families from Spanish-speaking territories in the USA. In their basic work on the topic, Bilingualism and Education they question the definitions of bilingualism which focus only on the linguistic side of the phenomenon. They cannot accept that bilingualism means simply “the usage of two languages in instruction” (1989, p. 374). As it will be seen later in the research, bilingualism or multilingualism is a very complex issue which cannot be narrowed into pure linguistic borders. At this point Hakuta’s  Garcia’s (1989) pioneering recognition forwarded later research into social and cultural contexts, beyond the analysis of linguistic structures.

Moreover, modern researchers (Baker, 2000; Kovács, 2008; García, 2009; Busch, 2011;

Creese  Blackledge, 2011), while shifting from psycholinguistic aspects to socio-linguistic questions, also added a language educational value to their work.

By the turn of the century bilingual schools have mushroomed to such an extent that it was time to produce typologies in order to see bilingual educational programmes clearly.

Although different aspects and subjective points are usually added to these typologies, I was

44 trying to find one that can explain well the characteristics of the bilingual features of the kindergarten where I was doing my research and found Baker’s (2000) division especially useful (Figure 10).

What first meets the eye is the two different forms, i.e. “weak” and “strong” forms of bilingual education. The distinction lies between the aims: while in weak forms the outcome will be monolingualism or limited bilingualism, strong forms concentrate on bilingual and biliterate outcome. Beyond linguistic aims, weak forms are called “assimilationist” by Baker (2000, p. 93) where the target language and culture will make an impact on the individual and strong form will maintain “cultural pluralism and multiculturalism” (2000, p. 94).

Figure 10. The ten major styles of bilingual education by Baker (2000, p. 93)

45 As the present subject matter is bi- and multilingual education, here I will focus only on the strong forms:

1. Immersion bilingual education originated in Canada and involves schools where children from a language majority (e.g. English children in Canada) are instructed in a minority language (e.g. in French in Canada). It means an initial emphasis of L2 and gradually, L1 also appears both as a subject and as the language of instruction. Depending on the quantity of the language of instruction the programme can be divided into “total immersion and partial immersion programmes” (Richards et al., 1992, p. 174). Another distinction can be made according to the age of children. Therefore researchers mention

“early, delayed/ middle and late immersion” (Vámos, 2008, p. 29). Benson (2009) stresses that immersion programmes can be especially advantageous in the case of children of bilingual families where parents can help their children to become bilingual and biliterate.

Yet, it might be successful with familial monolingual children as well, as the programme follows L2 teaching methods. At the same time it would be a mistake to think that L1 one is absolutely hidden. Immersion schools highly reckon on parents who support L1 acquisition at home (Genesee, 1987). The advantage of home support will be justified in the present research, too.

Before going on to the other types, it is worth making a detour to submersion education as it is often confused with immersion bilingual education. The gist of this type is mirrored in its usual name, i.e. ‘sink or swim’ (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1990, p. 13), which refers to the fact that it is an assimilation programme (Figure 8) where language minority children are given instructions exclusively in L2. It is important to notice that children in this approach are not at all given the opportunity to choose among languages and there is a great chance that children do not understand the language of the school (Benson, 2009). It can easily be seen that this method lacks every form of L1 support; therefore children might suffer not only from language but also from culture shock which hinders both their linguistic and social development.

2. The aim of maintenance/ heritage language bilingual education is to protect and develop a community’s original language which usually means an ethnic or minority language. As L1 serves as the language of instruction and L2 is taught as a foreign or second language, full bilingualism can be achieved with this method. A series of examples can be mentioned in America (Navajo or Hawai’ian languages), in Australia (Aboriginal languages), in New Zealand (Māori) and also in Europe (Irish, Maltese and Catalan languages). This type of education is a relevant field in early childhood language acquisition: the success of a Māori

46 full-immersion pre-school programme, the “language nest” (Baker, 2011, p. 233) justified the necessity of L1 in the kindergarten.

3. Two-Way/ Dual Language bilingual education uses two languages as the language of instruction where the rate of majority and minority children permits it, i.e. their percentage is approximately 50%-50%. The programme started in the early 1960s with Cuban immigrants to Florida and it also aims bilingualism and biculturalism. The latter is the core of the programme as according to the mission of the schools equality in the education and in the society should be given to all children. The two languages are also given equal status, and ideally, equal amount of time. Language boundaries, however, are strict in these schools, which means that bilingual teachers are employed and the ‘one-person-one language’

principle is followed. The latter is based on the different persons and their linguistic abilities and skills that are applied parallel in bilingual classes (Busch, 2011). Problems may arise when the rate of students is not equal, or when not enough bilingual teachers are available.

Dual language schools can easily be connected with peace missions where bilingual education can be used as a tool of reconciliation, for instance in war-torn or unpeaceful areas, like the countries of former Yugoslavia or Israel.

4. Mainstream Bilingual education in its aims is very similar to dual language education. The most important difference between the two is that while in the previous form there are no criteria which languages to use, in mainstream bilingual education two majority languages are applied. Baker (2011) differentiates two main reasons for mainstream bilingual education. In the first case the majority is already bilingual (e.g. in Singapore or Luxembourg), while in the second case the population wants to be bilingual, i.e. they learn a foreign language in order to use it in their later life or career. In both cases two majority languages are the languages of instruction and several subjects are taught through both languages. Under this heading the following educational types may fit 1. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), which integrates language learning and learning with the help of another language, 2. International Schools where one of the languages of the school is usually the English language, and 3. European Schools which form a network of Europeans, mostly from those who work in the bureaus of the European Union (Baetens Beardsmore, 1993; Vámos, 2008; Schola Europaea, n.d.).

As far as Hungary is concerned, the above typology should be dealt with care as the history of language teaching is fairly different from that of the Western world. How foreign languages were taught in Hungary and how the different languages and methods alternated with each other in different historical eras is beyond the focal point of our present study. Yet,

47 it is important to know that the political changes brought significant changes in foreign language teaching, thus, in bi- and multilingual education as well. While the 1990s seemed to favour establishing bilingual schools and launching Content and Language Integrated Learning (Bognár, 2005; Vámos, 2008a, b), Hungary’s accession to the European Union in 2004 set further priorities into limelight like linguistic diversity, early start and language learning in secondary and higher education (Promoting, 2004). Although a lot has been done in the above mentioned areas, Hungary still faces challenges in receiving migrant children because, as Vámos (2008 a) points out, the country does not have an official migration policy and it makes a heavy impact on multilingual-multicultural education. Schools receiving foreign pupils have to work out their own programme as it will be revealed in the related chapter (cf. 2.5.3) about migratory education in our country.

Terms on typologies, however, do not seem to be consistent. Skutnabb-Kangas (1990) examines bilingual programmes from the aspect of language rights which will be discussed later (cf. 2.5), while García (2009) applies a different frame from Baker’s arguing for the term

“type” instead of “model” criticising Hornberger’s (1991) concept explaining that her own approach carries more pragmatic values than her predecessor’s. She also creates new terms using ‘“monoglossic’ and ‘heteroglossic’ instead of ‘monolingual’ and ‘bilingual’, but from our aspect it is more important that she also introduces new concepts as well. One of them is the “subtractive” and “additive” features (García, 2009, p. 116) of bilingual education.

Although these terms must be familiar by now from our linguistic overview (cf. 2.2), it is worth noticing how García applies them to education. She makes this distinction according to the language of instruction in education and serves with two formulas which summarise the gist of her ideas. Here the formula

L1 + L2 – L1  L2

shows how the language of education (L2) displaces children’s mother tongue (L1) with which they appear at school (subtractive) and

L1 + L2 = L1 + L2

justifies that using two languages in education will result in bilingual outcome (additive).

Similarly, recursive and dynamic theoretical frameworks may also be considered to be important in García’s study. Recursive in educational context supposes complex (vs. static)

48 bilingualism where using two languages is not a goal but a device and where the two languages are added to and support each other (Figure 11):

Figure 11. García’s Recursive Bilingual education Theoretical Framework 1.

(García, 2009, p. 118)

Dynamic, on the other hand, cannot be considered to be the “opposite” of recursive framework, but this has other, more subtle features. In this model languages (not necessarily only two) interface in a flexible way completing and supporting each other with different cultural elements as well. Thus, a very vivid coexistence of languages and cultures can be noticed (Figure 12):

Figure 12. García’s Recursive Bilingual education Theoretical Framework 2.

(García, 2009, p. 119)

Understanding the gist of recursive and dynamic theoretical framework it can be concluded that in Pápa the dynamic model can be witnessed which is an up-to-date and fruitful manifestation of multilingual education. Additionally, it can be emphasised that bi- or multilingualism cannot be observed only from a narrowed linguistic point, but also cultural and social entities must be taken into consideration.

At this point modern pedagogical considerations have to be added to our discussion.

Varga (2006) shows the place of multilingual-multicultural education as a part of inclusive educational system. She sees clearly how the term “inclusive” was extended first in Britain, then gradually all around the world from the education of socially disadvantaged children to linguistically and culturally different children. The collected criteria of multicultural education can serve as our guidelines in our examination of the multicultural kindergarten of Pápa, Hungary. She outlines seven basic elements of multicultural education which are the principles of

49 1. flexibility

2. simultaneous parallel interactions 3. positive interdependence

4. equal participation 5. individual responsibility

6. continuous cooperative publicity

7. intently developed personal and social competences.

In the present research attention will be paid to each of them from the aspect of the actors of multilingual-multicultural education.